Why I Use Fossil
sheddingbikes.com
Why I Use Fossil
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#2Not to be confused with Plan 9's Fossil file system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_(file_system)
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#3he gave reasonable arguments, assuming one does always want all of those extra features beyond VCS for each new project. for me, most of the projects i start never need to go public, and of those that do, most don't need a full-blown wiki or issue tracking system. README and TODO file are sufficient 99% of the time, esp with no public collabs. so git and github still hit the sweetspot for me in the default case.
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#4he gave reasonable arguments, assuming one does always want all of those extra features beyond VCS for each new project. for me, most of the projects i start never need to go public, and of those that do, most don't need a full-blown wiki or issue tracking system. README and TODO file are sufficient 99% of the time, esp with no public collabs. so git and github still hit the sweetspot for me in the default case.
Fossil actually fits this use case better than git or mercurial, because fossil is just a 700 kb executable that you can take with you. No need to install a package or hunt for cygwin versions.
and the whole repository is just a single file. Backing up your whole project and the SCM is a matter of copying two files over.
Git is a swiss army knife for fossil's switch blade.
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#5he gave reasonable arguments, assuming one does always want all of those extra features beyond VCS for each new project. for me, most of the projects i start never need to go public, and of those that do, most don't need a full-blown wiki or issue tracking system. README and TODO file are sufficient 99% of the time, esp with no public collabs. so git and github still hit the sweetspot for me in the default case.
Fossil actually fits this use case better than git or mercurial, because fossil is just a 700 kb executable that you can take with you. No need to install a package or hunt for cygwin versions. and the whole repository is just a single file. Backing up your whole project and the SCM is a matter of copying two files over. Git is a swiss army knife for fossil's switch blade.
+1 mostly for an awesome handle
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#6If I may quickly address Zed's concerns about putting his code on GitHub:
1. GitHub is a node on a distributed graph, you're still in full control of your source and its history thanks to Git. Push your code to a dozen different places, Git doesn't care and neither do we.
2. We have soft disk space limits. If your OS project is massive, we're not going to suddenly start charging you if you exceed that space. We want lots and lots of open source projects on GitHub, we just don't want it to become the place you host your music and porn, there are plenty of other services that are happy to do that.
3. GitHub's growth (thus revenue) skyrocketed during the recession, and it's only getting better. We've rejected acquisition offers since the site was launched, we care deeply about the service we've built.
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#7I looked at Fossil a few months ago. I basically liked it, but Fossil (1) didn't do Git-style file rename detection, and (2) didn't have "git add --patch" functionality. Has this changed? I can't really use an SCM without those features anymore.
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#8Instead of a per-project-trac you could setup redmine which supports multiple projects (tickets, wiki, forum, repo). Fossil looks interesting but I wouldn't want to pass on git.
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#9If I may quickly address Zed's concerns about putting his code on GitHub: 1. GitHub is a node on a distributed graph, you're still in full control of your source and its history thanks to Git. Push your code to a dozen different places, Git doesn't care and neither do we. 2. We have soft disk space limits. If your OS project is massive, we're not going to suddenly start charging you if you exceed that space. We want…
I think the distribution issue is more about metadata than the code itself: issues, wiki pages, and comments are still centralized on GitHub. With Fossil, I gather, they're distributed among each clone.
Re: Why I Use Fossil
#10he gave reasonable arguments, assuming one does always want all of those extra features beyond VCS for each new project. for me, most of the projects i start never need to go public, and of those that do, most don't need a full-blown wiki or issue tracking system. README and TODO file are sufficient 99% of the time, esp with no public collabs. so git and github still hit the sweetspot for me in the default case.
Fossil actually fits this use case better than git or mercurial, because fossil is just a 700 kb executable that you can take with you. No need to install a package or hunt for cygwin versions. and the whole repository is just a single file. Backing up your whole project and the SCM is a matter of copying two files over. Git is a swiss army knife for fossil's switch blade.
Fossil has a wiki, issue tracker, etc, all in a small little portable package - it's far more deserving of the 'swiss army knife' label than git. Git's more like an industrial lathe or something.