21–30 of 54 posts
It looks like it's here to stay, so I'm hoping someone will make a set of standard wrappers/GUI for making git bearable.
Sometimes I feel like the modern programmer is expected to spend more time learning to use multiple implementations of the same basic concept, than on actual programming.
I 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.
There's no real way to throw out branches easily, nor is there any rebasing. Fossil doesn't track renames, so if you rename files in a branch, you'll need to rename them again on mainline before the merge. Fossil doesn't have any concept of patch management via email, which is fairly central to most OSS projects I'm involved with. The bug tracker is not DAG-based, but rather last-wins, which can result in some surprising outcomes. You have to log in to see bug reports, which can be discouraging for users, and prevents your bugs from being googleable. And so on.
I'm not saying that GitHub is perfect--hell, I make a competitor, based on Mercurial no less, so I clearly don't think it is--but I think Fossil still has enough fundamental flaws in it that I would be very hesitant to pick it up for a new project. I'd rather deal with GitHub's proprietary system (of which all data is accessible via its API [1]) than deal with Fossil's SCM quirks. Zed clearly disagrees, and has projects where it's working for him, and the SQLite project uses it, so it might work for you. But I would strongly encourage caution. I'll personally be sticking to Mercurial and Git for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We're slowly but surely moving towards having those things either become git-backed or exportable. Wikis are first up and we're very close.
While I love the idea of Fossil, I think Zed downplays a lot of the problems that it has in reality. There's no real way to throw out branches easily, nor is there any rebasing. Fossil doesn't track renames, so if you rename files in a branch, you'll need to rename them again on mainline before the merge. Fossil doesn't have any concept of patch management via email, which is fairly central to most OSS projects I'm i…
While I love the idea of Fossil, I think Zed downplays a lot of the problems that it has in reality. There's no real way to throw out branches easily, nor is there any rebasing. Fossil doesn't track renames, so if you rename files in a branch, you'll need to rename them again on mainline before the merge. Fossil doesn't have any concept of patch management via email, which is fairly central to most OSS projects I'm i…
"You can create branches by doing multiple commits off of the same base version." It doesn't sound hard, but perhaps I am missing something?
While I love the idea of Fossil, I think Zed downplays a lot of the problems that it has in reality. There's no real way to throw out branches easily, nor is there any rebasing. Fossil doesn't track renames, so if you rename files in a branch, you'll need to rename them again on mainline before the merge. Fossil doesn't have any concept of patch management via email, which is fairly central to most OSS projects I'm i…
Edit: I originally said there wasn't API support for issues, but in fact there is.
We've been using git and github for a few months now, and it's not intuitive, nor does it get out the way or offer to help to figure out what just happened. I'm fairly sure that with time we'll get used to the common use-cases, but right now I'm still backing up the 'src' dir before doing a 'git rebase'. It looks like it's here to stay, so I'm hoping someone will make a set of standard wrappers/GUI for making git bea…
I think you should know all the SCMs you can and be able to switch between them. Sometimes I feel like the modern programmer is expected to spend more time learning to use multiple implementations of the same basic concept, than on actual programming.
1) RoR NINJA!
2) jQuery EXPERTS!
3) JSF and/or Spring _and_ Struts2
4) C#, ASP.NET
5) All-things XML (XSLT, XSL-FO, XQuery, Xwhatever)
6) Specifically asking for DB2 or Oracle (not DBA, but for a typical developer position)
Instead of the fundamental programming skills like fundamental Data Structure and Algorithm, fundamental RDBMS, fundamental Software Engineering, etc.
On the other hand, I think Zed is just trying to be sarcastic to those who said that "you must keep on learning new things, like myself, see... I'm learning GIT" when it first came out but flat-out refused learning other things at the same time.