Fossil versus Git
fossil-scm.org
Fossil versus Git
1–10 of 197 posts
Re: Fossil versus Git
#2I keep coming back to fossil again and again, despite git having a huge pull because of the easy publishing and collab on github/gitlab.
Just the other day I was starting an exploratory project, and thought: I'll just use git so I can throw this on github later. Well, silly me, it happened to contain some large binary files, and github rejected it, wanting me to use git-lfs for the big files. After half an hour of not getting it to work, I just thought screw it, I'll drop everything into fossil, and that was it. I have my issue tracker and wiki and everything, though admittedly I'll have some friction later on if I want to share this project. Not having to deal with random git-lfs errors later on when trying to merge commits with these large files is a plus, and if I ever want to, I can fast-export the repo and ingest it into git.
Re: Fossil versus Git
#3I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off.
"VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC"
I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
Re: Fossil versus Git
#4I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off. "VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC" I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
Well, do you use GitHub or an equivalent?
The point of this, as the article states:
> These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party add-ons, but with Fossil they are integrated into the design, to the point that it approximates "GitHub-in-a-box.
I’ve not used fossil, but I appreciate this idea.
Sure, it’s not unixy, but maybe a VCS reasonably demands such features, and today, it’s not as though these are crazy advanced or complex features.
Re: Fossil versus Git
#5I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off. "VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC" I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
Well, do you use GitHub or an equivalent? The point of this, as the article states: > These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party add-ons, but with Fossil they are integrated into the design, to the point that it approximates "GitHub-in-a-box. I’ve not used fossil, but I appreciate this idea. Sure, it’s not unixy, but maybe a VCS reasonably demands such features, and today, it’s not as though the…
[deleted]
Re: Fossil versus Git
#6I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off. "VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC" I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
Well, do you use GitHub or an equivalent? The point of this, as the article states: > These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party add-ons, but with Fossil they are integrated into the design, to the point that it approximates "GitHub-in-a-box. I’ve not used fossil, but I appreciate this idea. Sure, it’s not unixy, but maybe a VCS reasonably demands such features, and today, it’s not as though the…
Gitea is already "GitHub in a box".
Also, GitHub is not something to emulate, it is the lowest common denominator of repo hosting.
Re: Fossil versus Git
#7I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off. "VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC" I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
Well, do you use GitHub or an equivalent? The point of this, as the article states: > These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party add-ons, but with Fossil they are integrated into the design, to the point that it approximates "GitHub-in-a-box. I’ve not used fossil, but I appreciate this idea. Sure, it’s not unixy, but maybe a VCS reasonably demands such features, and today, it’s not as though the…
> Well, do you use GitHub or an equivalent?
Not sure how that's relevant, but I have ~150 repos locally and less than 10 on github. I also like the unix philosophy of having tools that do one thing and do it well.
Re: Fossil versus Git
#8I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off. "VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC" I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
I’m of two minds. I like the unix philosophy, and I feel like an all in one tool (probably written in C) is just a bigger attack vector. But I also like that there are alternatives to the git monoculture. I think the focus on convenience for common dev team functions is rather nice.
Re: Fossil versus Git
#9I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off. "VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC" I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
Well, do you use GitHub or an equivalent? The point of this, as the article states: > These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party add-ons, but with Fossil they are integrated into the design, to the point that it approximates "GitHub-in-a-box. I’ve not used fossil, but I appreciate this idea. Sure, it’s not unixy, but maybe a VCS reasonably demands such features, and today, it’s not as though the…
To me it feels like, rare and smart ones, trying to penetrate giant markets with all in one solutions. I'm not even mad. But find it hard to comprehend who would make such change. Probably they want to test their patience and expect considerable userbase in 30 years, finally monetize it.
Re: Fossil versus Git
#10I don't know Fossil. However, the first entry in the comparison table puts me off. "VCS, tickets, wiki, docs, notes, forum, chat, UI, RBAC" I don't want my version control system to be a wiki. Or a chat app, or any of that.
Well, GitHub wiki is integrated too.
https://docs.github.com/en/communities/documenting-your-proj...