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

91–100 of 172 posts

Re: Fossil Chat

#91

Post by iudqnolq »

exikyut wrote: post #42
candiddevmike wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SQLite3 is the only project I have ever seen that casually makes (non-normative, non-legally-binding) confident reference to its suitability for use in medical devices.

I just saw today it's "aviation certified", which I assumed was the same but turned out to be literally true.

Re: Fossil Chat

#92

Post by sigzero »

rkeene2 wrote: post #78
chillfox wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I could see using fossil for public projects if the pull requests gets implemented. Currently I only use it for private projects. So my top wish list feature would be basic CI.

I started Fossil CI [0] for this, but I have not finished it up. [0] https://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/fossil-ci/index

Is there a way to donate to the chiselapp effort?

Re: Fossil Chat

#93

Post by sgbeal »

ephaeton wrote: post #90
sgbeal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I could be so unproductive... It goes much further than that... When one views a fossil-hosted forum post from the main fossil site or sqlite's site, they are looking at... - A forum post rendered by software Richard wrote. - Piped out to you via an HTTP server he wrote. - Served from an SCM he wrote. - Stored on a database package he wrote. - All coded in a text editor he wrote. Complete vertical integration. H…

I'd rather he'd announce his MTA & MUA so we can reinstate the fossil mailing list. Going to its own quirky (at the time, haven't checked since the switch) forums meant I lost interest in being part of the (dev) community.

> I'd rather he'd announce his MTA & MUA so we can reinstate the fossil mailing list.

It's demonstrably become impossible to manage spam in such an environment without the resources of mega-corps, whereas fossil aims to be a entirely SCM environment in a single binary hosted from modest hardware (e.g. a Raspberry Pi).

The inability to manage spam was the driving factor for the forum. It is somewhat quirky, but it works well and our spam rate has been literally one single spam in nearly three years of operation (and that one was subtle - hiding an ad link inside a markdown hyperlink which enclosed only a single period). Similarly, the sqlite forum (which was migrated only relatively recently) is also spam-free.

If you have found a way to develop a fully spam-proof, mailing-list-based solution then, by all means, show us the code. Until then, the forum has proven to completely solve the problem it set out to: provide a spam-free communication channel for fossil and sqlite.

Re: Fossil Chat

#94

Post by sgbeal »

orf wrote: post #28

mdel, ltime, mtime. Why do people insist on oft unreadable short column names?

> mdel, ltime, mtime. Why do people insist on oft unreadable short column names?

You forgot to mention vfile.chnged. i've been contributing to fossil since 2008 and that missing "a" still, to this day, agitates me ;).

Re: Fossil Chat

#95

Post by rkeene2 »

sigzero wrote: post #92
rkeene2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started Fossil CI [0] for this, but I have not finished it up. [0] https://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/fossil-ci/index

Is there a way to donate to the chiselapp effort?

I added some ways to donate to my profile on here

Re: Fossil Chat

#96

Post by sgbeal »

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…

> It isn't clear what makes bundling a chat program into your SCM beneficial. ... you can just use regular URLs in any old chat app.

You just answered your own question: trying to get any given group of people to use the same 3rd-party chat platform, especially one hosted by Big Megacorp (and aren't they all nowadays?), is like herding cats. Every developer on a fossil project already has an account they can use, not hosted by Big Megacorp, which they can chat over (provided the project admin permits it - they are not required to give devs chat access).

i admit that i had several reservations when Richard proposed /chat on the fossil mailing list, but i'm a 100% convert, and now use it 24/7 on two projects and get tremendous value from it.

(Disclaimer: i wrote the /chat front-end, so am inherently biased, but i'm biased towards it because it's useful, low/zero-maintenance, and low-friction, not because i've invested many hours into its development.)

Re: Fossil Chat

#97

Post by sgbeal »

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.

> Does anyone use Fossil?

Almost literally every day since Christmas break of 2007.

> I like all it offers for the relatively low resource usage.

And setting it up to run over CGI (e.g. over a $5/month shared hoster) takes about 90 seconds and requires no additional apps. That was the initial Killer Feature for me, and is still critical for me. i host dozens of repositories over CGI on an inexpensive shared hoster (https://fossil.wanderinghorse.net), and couldn't do that with any other SCM.

Re: Fossil Chat

#99

Post by dahart »

Hendrikto wrote: post #30
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.

Agreed. In particular “Rebasing is lying about the project history” is misleading and frankly, just downright lame hyperbole. I actually want to try Fossil, but this text is so dishonest and hyperbolic, it’s off-putting and preventing me from trying Fossil. This feels like a sign that Fossil might not be focused on real world user needs.

It’s not uncommon to bump into this claim in threads about git, I don’t think the Fossil devs came up with this idea, but they sure are running with it. This is an argument whose time has passed and needs to die. It’s not helpful.

Please @Fossil devs, come up with better and more honest reasons to compare Fossil to git. If I don’t have to rebase again, that’s great! If Fossil avoids merge conflicts more often, and handles merge conflicts better, absolutely fantastic.

But, please, come on. Rebase is “lying” exactly just as much as hitting backspace is “lying”. Am I lying if I fix a typo or a bug before I commit? Do you really want to preserve all keystrokes ever typed on your keyboard during development? Does Fossil actually capture all keystrokes? If not, then are you sure Fossil is not lying about development history by your definition? Being able to clean and organize your development history before you share it with others is an intentional feature, not a bug. Attempting to claim a moral high ground over what is purely a technical and workflow issue is making Fossil look ignorant to me, it’s doing the opposite of what you want.

Re: Fossil Chat

#100

Post by sgbeal »

theamk wrote: post #37
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.

I avoid it because of complete lack of commit amendment tools. It seems like quarter of the time I make a commit I mess up either a commit message or a file list, and have to "git amend". I have no idea how the sqlite devs live without the feature, they must be much more careful programmers than I am.

> I avoid it because of complete lack of commit amendment tools.

That's downright wrong: https://fossil-scm.org/home/help/amend

Post reply on HN