On 14 September 2015 at 13:58, Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Oliver Friedrich < > redtalonof+mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > with nested repositories my administration overhead would exceed even > the single repository solution, right? > > The alternative to managing just one .fossil file is managing just one > directly full of .fossil files. Is that really such a big difference? > > Note that “fossil serve” works the same when pointed to a directory full > of fossils as it does when pointed at a single fossil, with the exception > that the URLs are all one directory deeper. I use nested checkouts and I have many .fossil files in my ~/Fossils directory. One of them, Admin, has a wiki page that points to pages in the others so I can access them easily. I keep the url http://localhost:8080/Admin/wiki?name=Admin open in one of my browser tabs (actually the first one) so I can easily get at any of the repos in one click. I have sections in that wiki page like: <h3>Direct Links</h3> * <a href="/Courses/wiki?name=Links">Courses Links</a> * <a href="/CPS313/wiki?name=Links">CPS313 Links</a> <h3>Administrative links</h3> * <a href="/Courses">Courses</a> * <a href="/Research">Research</a> along with other generally useful links. Yes, I have to use --nested when I open a new directory on a repo, but I do that only a few times a year (in fact, I usually forget, but fossil tells me there's a problem, so I re-issue the open with --nested). ../Dave
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
