On 11/24/17, Johan Kuuse <jo...@kuu.se> wrote: > I agree on that we would give up Fossil semantics.
I have no intent to "give up" or change the semantics of Fossil, and I see no reason why enabling Fossil to push and pull from Git repositories would require this. Adding the ability to interact with Git is very much the same kind of change as adding support for SHA3 hashes. When Fossil 2.0 came out, we didn't "give up" on the semantics of Fossil 1.37. Most users upgraded to Fossil 2.0 and never noticed any change at all. Fossil 2.0 reads and writes legacy repos the same as it always did. The only thing that changed is that Fossil 2.0 also included the ability to read/write repos that included artifacts with SHA3 hashes. If none of your repos have SHA3 hashes, then Fossil 1.37 and Fossil 2.0 are completely interchangeable. You only need Fossil 2.0 if you start using repos that do include SHA3 hashes. Likewise, moving from Fossil 2.x to Fossil-NG (whatever the version number turns out to be) will be a non-issue for most users. All the commands will work the same when using legacy repos. Fossil-NG merely adds the ability to push and pull from Git. If you don't use that feature, then nothing changes. Both Fossil 2.x and Fossil-NG will be able to read and write the same Fossil repos, as long as you do not run use Fossil-NG features. After you "rebuild" and start using Fossil-NG specific features, legacy Fossil-2.x clients might no longer work with that particular repo. This is the same situation that came up in the Fossil-1.37 to Fossil-2.0 transition. That transition went smoothly and I expect the transition to Fossil-NG to be just as smooth. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
