Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fossil Chat

fossil-scm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: Fossil Chat

#21

Post by pmarin »

candiddevmike wrote: post #18
pmarin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What web server do you use?

Caddy, though I have used NGINX and HAProxy in the past. I get your point, but those projects have corporate backing and a lot of scrutiny. A niche C project seems less likely to have that.

Do you know the author of Fossil is the same person who wrote sqlite?

Re: Fossil Chat

#22

Post by Thursday032521 »

danpalmer wrote: post #8

> Fossil chat is not intended as a replacement or competitor for So what is it for? If it's another inbox to check that's a bit of a productivity drain. I could understand if it was explicitly designed to compete with other chat platforms. This would seem to fit with Fossil's mission well.

> Fossil chat is designed for use by insiders - people with check-in privileges or higher. It is not intended as a general-purpose gathering place for random passers-by on the internet. Fossil chat seeks to provide a communication venue for discussion that does not become part of the permanent record for the project. For persistent and durable discussion, use the Forum. Because the conversation is intended to be ephemeral, the chat messages are local to a single repository. Chat content does not sync.

Re: Fossil Chat

#23

Post by billfruit »

kevincox wrote: post #11

All I can think is that it seems a bit early for April Fool's jokes. It isn't clear what makes bundling a chat program into your SCM beneficial. The only benefit I can see is linking to other things in the SCM like wikis and issues, but since these are available on the web anyways you can just use regular URLs in any old chat app. The other possible benefit would be keeping chat with you for local searching and keepi…

Lack of a direct messaging/email feature is one of the major lacuna of Git hub. In that light may be having some sort of integrated channel is a good thing.

Re: Fossil Chat

#25

Post by scambier »

danpalmer wrote: post #8

> Fossil chat is not intended as a replacement or competitor for So what is it for? If it's another inbox to check that's a bit of a productivity drain. I could understand if it was explicitly designed to compete with other chat platforms. This would seem to fit with Fossil's mission well.

Most Fossil projects are on the smaller (smallest?) side, apart from 2-3 outliers. They certainly don't have a dedicated IM channel, and they certainly don't need it... except when they do.

I could see this as a useful feature when you need to chat with contributors once in a while in a less-formal way than issue comments.

Re: Fossil Chat

#26

Post by [deleted] »

kevincox wrote: post #11

All I can think is that it seems a bit early for April Fool's jokes. It isn't clear what makes bundling a chat program into your SCM beneficial. The only benefit I can see is linking to other things in the SCM like wikis and issues, but since these are available on the web anyways you can just use regular URLs in any old chat app. The other possible benefit would be keeping chat with you for local searching and keepi…

[deleted]

Re: Fossil Chat

#27

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

Where are the screenshots?? How infuriating is it to go to a project's homepage that has a UI and not see any goddamn screenshots. This is absolutely table stakes if you want me to use your product.

edit: Oh haha, the website is literally Fossil. Ok but I wanna see what the chat UI and other stuff looks like.

Re: Fossil Chat

#29

Post by satya71 »

Reminds me of Unix talk and write. They were so simple when sharing little bits of information with people already logged into the system.

Re: Fossil Chat

#30

Post by Hendrikto »

HeckFeck wrote: post #2

Does anyone use Fossil? I'm considering it for my personal projects. I like all it offers for the relatively low resource usage. The only use of it I've seen in the wild is Ripcord ( https://dev.cancel.fm/issues ), which is interestingly also relatively low resource usage compared to its competitor.

Fossil looks very interesting, but I completely disagree with their [stance on rebasing](https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md). This is a dealbreaker for me.

I do not consider having 10 buggy commits per feature instead of 1 working one an advantage. It just complicates reading history and hinders debugging (e.g. bisect). I get their arguments, I just disagree.

Post reply on HN