On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <off...@riseup.net> wrote: > > On 20/11/17 17:22, Warren Young wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas >> <off...@riseup.net> wrote: >>> I thought that was the extension >>> the shallow cloned repository would get if no extension name was specified. >> If you say >> >> $ fossil clone https://fossil-scm.org fossil >> >> You get a repository file called “fossil”, not “fossil.fossil”. > > No. I was referring to the later case (fossil.fossil)
If you’re simply arguing that .fossil should be appended if a clone file name is given but no extension is given, that’s a separate topic from anything I’ve brought up. I’m ambivalent about the idea: I’m fine with the current behavior and I wouldn’t be upset if it changed. >> In my clone-and-open scheme, leaving off the final parameter above would >> give you a directory called “Fossil” > > Well my argument is related with how I setup the web server to serve > files ended in ".fossil", but I can just add more extensions as the > community decides. I don’t see that clone-and-open impacts that either way. This feature would be used primarily by people who want to use someone else’s repository. If they re-serve it at all, it’ll probably be via a bare “fossil server” command, not pointing to a directory of fossils at all or using a front-end proxy layer. I’m targeting the GitHub use case here: someone publishes a project and people want to just copy the repo contents down into a local directory to mess with, in the fewest steps possible. Git allows you to do this in 2 steps: clone & cd. Fossil currently requires 5, as I showed up-thread. That’s a problem. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
