On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Gour <g...@atmarama.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:00:08 -0400
> Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Needing a break from dump file processing, I decided to look in to
> > how a mirror could be kept up to date.
>
> Thank you very much for taking time in doing this research...


Thank you for your apriciation.


>
> > Although this sounds like a "Rube Goldberg way" of doing it, it might
> > actually be easier to get working.
>
> Heh...now we can even more appreciate how Fossil is powerful and simple
> at the same time. ;)


The dump file is still the best way because the "post commit hook" method
won't preserve as much information. It's really just that there are a lot
of details to work out and design/implement handling for.

The main information the "post commit hook" method risks loosing is the
relationship between a copied file and its copy, but Fossil doesn't have a
copy command, so doesn't keep this, though I'm pretty sure it could.

The main advantages of the "post commit hook" method are that the really
hard stuff gets handled by SVN. and it turns out that "svnadmin load" has
an option to run the post commit hook, so this would work with dump files,
too.

Besides the copied-copy issue, the main disadvantages of the "post commit
hook" method are the need for an extra SVN repo and to have a working space
to hold the individual files.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Reply via email to