Fossil Versus Git
fossil-scm.org
Fossil Versus Git
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#2Look, new projects should have these pages, and they SHOULD be passionate and biased.
However, shit like this makes me stop reading:
"Git has a huge user community. If following the herd and being like everybody else is important to you, then you should choose Git."
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#3Look, new projects should have these pages, and they SHOULD be passionate and biased. However, shit like this makes me stop reading: "Git has a huge user community. If following the herd and being like everybody else is important to you, then you should choose Git."
I logged in to make the same comment. If you want someone to use your product, the best way to do that isn't to call them sheep
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#4Look, new projects should have these pages, and they SHOULD be passionate and biased. However, shit like this makes me stop reading: "Git has a huge user community. If following the herd and being like everybody else is important to you, then you should choose Git."
Agreed. Having a small community and not being well-known are not advantages.
They try to say that your voice will be comparatively louder and you'll get more attention from the developers, but in a large community, you get attention from the community as well. The only thing you can get from using an unpopular project is an adrenaline rush from living on the edge.
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#5Some NetBSD are considering moving to Fossil. It's notable that Fossil's license is BSD while Git and Mercurial are GPLed. Some interesting pages pop up while search "NetBSD Fossil", like http://www.sonnenberger.org/ or interesting quote from Fossil's author in http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-repository/2010/01/18/msg0... :
"I suppose my biggest concern with Fossil and NetBSD is how Fossil might scale. We use Fossil on projects with a 1GB or larger check-out and with thousands and thousands of files. But I didn't really design fossil for truly huge projects."
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#6Does anyone know whether fossil has a staging area? I tried but could not find it. Google didn't really help either.
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#7Look, new projects should have these pages, and they SHOULD be passionate and biased. However, shit like this makes me stop reading: "Git has a huge user community. If following the herd and being like everybody else is important to you, then you should choose Git."
Oh no, not another SCM. My head is already bursting from learning Hg and Git...
Also I don't think "lack of rebase" is a feature. If you don't want it in git, just forbid using it for your project. However, if you want to maintain a patch-set outside of a project it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#8IMO the "Sharding versus Replicating" section sounds a little bit like someone is trying to sell me on a centralized VCS after I've already switched to and enjoy DVCS.
And further down in the same section, it sounds like the author has confused Git itself, with the way Git is used developing the Linux kernel. Just because the Linux kernel devs use Git in a particular way doesn't mean Git encourages any one particular model over another.
Does anyone know of a more technically accurate and less biased comparison?
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#9I'm all for competition, but how do they come across saying that Git is complex while Fossil is intuitive? Is it possible to still be intuitive while still being a "complex" system? I'm not exactly a Git master, but I have had absolutely no troubles using it after getting everything setup.
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#10The fact that fossil has "Versioning, Tickets, Wiki, and Blog/News", really puts me off this, actually.
I'm not massive into the unix philsophy, but this seems like bloated: they should be separate things, even if they're interconnected imo.