Hello,
On 12 September 2015 at 14:34, Oliver Friedrich
<redtalonof+mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to give a thought on how I use fossil regularly and on what I would
> love as a feature.
>
> While fossil is easy to set up and maintain, I often have several small
> projects that seem to be to small to get an own instance of a repository for
> themselfes. Additionally, I like to use fossil, because it reduces the
> number of files to manage (1 repo instead of dozens of files per project).
>
> That spoken, I have bunch of code-samples and abstracted code-problems in
> different programming languages and flavours, that I keep as personal
> knowledge database. I tend to give each of them its own fossil repository,
> but as I mentioned before, sometimes they have just one or two files.
>
> My old solution was to have one repository with one set of folders for each
> sub-project. But Timeline get messy really fast and it is hard to track
> sub-projects with this approach.
>
> My current solution is to have one repository with an empty initial check-in
> tagged as ROOT. Then I do one branch per sub-project based on the ROOT
> check-in.
>
> That way I'm able to keep my code cleanly detached from each another, but it
> feels really dirty - cause that's in no way the correct handling of
> branches.
>
> What I really would like to have is to gather multiple such small projects
> in one repo file, so instead of having one ROOT check-in, having one ROOT
> for each project. I know that would make developing fossil a bit harder, but
> I think it would be a great feature and that not I'm the only one who would
> use this.
>
> In the simpliest logic I can imagine this would mean nothing more than one
> additional layer, branches belong to project. For the normal use, each
> branch would just belong to the default project. But I guess that
> implementing this could be much harder, especially visualizations in the
> web-frontend.
>
> But what do you think about multiple projects in one repo?
> What would be your approach on my problem?
I think this has come up a few times on this ML; I think some
suggestions are to use nested repos ('fossil open --nested') or
indeed, branches. At least one post about disjoint timelines within a
project is here:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil-scm.user/14983
I happen to use branches, just like you, and am fairly happy with
this. Nested repos were a bit overkill for me, but I guess that's
personal.
Michai
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
