On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2014 1:27 PM, "Ron Wilson" <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> For the local UI case, sure, i can see it being useful, but people > would also expect it to work remotely, and it often wouldn't. > > > > When running the local UI, that is seen as part of the local client, but > when accessing a remote server the perception is different. I think it > reasonable that the "server Fossil" not try to autosync to another server > Fossil. > > Please forgive what may be a stupid observation, but if there are users > that need ticket or wiki access (workflows that are typically ui only), > might not the best approach be to give them appropriate access to the > master via http (as someone already says they do indirectly by making that > the master copy)? > Not stupid. I suspect many Fossil installations do that. The Fossil and SQLite main sites do that. Sometimes, thought, that isn't practical. When those people aren't in the office, its not too hard for them to understand that the syncs don't happen. In the office, however, it is natural for them to expect the syncs are done automatically.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
