[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fossil-users
Subject:    Re: [fossil-users] issues with two way synchronization Fossil <->Git...
From:       "dave" <dev () ziggurat29 ! com>
Date:       2018-04-30 13:24:04
Message-ID: 1A207C08D3AF48A6AACDCF0C745F3130 () plexus
[Download RAW message or body]

> [mailto:fossil-users-bounces@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf 
> Of Saša Janiška
> 
> "dave" <dev@ziggurat29.com> writes:
> 
> > 1)  is fossil <-> git synchronization something that is
> > 'experimental', and I should not touch it, or is it 
> expected to work?
> 
> I also wonder about it...would like to provide some themes for the
> static-site-generator which I use, but the upstream requires 
> to have it
> as public url git repo, so I'd like to continue using Fossil and being
> able to contribute to the project easily...
> 
> Gour
 
Gumblex provided a tip that 2.5 is required to avoid one problem I was
having (I was using 2.4 -- life moves fast in fossilopolis).  I have some
work I must get done today, but I plan to go through my previous process
again -- perhaps Wed -- and report back one way or the other on the
experience.

I had many problems -- one of the weirdest was when the git had a 'stash' on
it.  This replicated into the fossil, and somehow prevented further syncing.
I wound up needing to purge off a bunch of stuff, and just make an effective
commit of about 10 or so checkins (sigh), then toss the git and start all
over.  At least the git was under my control so I could do this.

One aspect I am unclear about is how critical are the contents of the
'marks' files?  I.e. can I empty them and merely suffer a one-time
suboptimal merge activity while they catch up, or will doing so cause Repo
Madness?

-dave


_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]