|
From: Poor Y. <org...@po...> - 2024-11-05 13:38:11
|
On 2024-11-04 12:33, Dipl. Ing. Sergey G. Brester via Tcl-Core wrote: > I guess, because fossil isn't really distributed SCM - I don't know any > way to have 2 or more > remotes (like git does), so his changes could not be pushed to > different > repo (by retaining pull from core). > This is one the largest advantages of git, imho. > And private branches in fossil are really private - they would not be > synchronized at all > and remain completely local. > > I don't know why Nathan cannot switch to git (using fossil mirror for > pull and then push his branches > to some git-remote, like I do), but probably some historical thing. > > As for the behaviour that shouldn't be allowed... > Hmm... I can only criticize the strange method, he uses to hold the > branches synchronized with tcl-core - > for some reason instead of simple periodic merge, every commit will be > repeated (cherry-picked). > The bottom line this causes a lot of data in the repository and > duplicates the number of commits. > It's not a lot more data. A single commit of a regenerated file like "configure" adds more data than lots and lots of "normal" commits. I was considering switching to git but didn't, mostly due to inertia. -- Yorick |