Live data from Hacker News

Fossil Chat

fossil-scm.org

171–172 of 172 posts

Re: Fossil Chat

#171
post #170
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks to be someone presenting their opinion—not a statement of fact. Ironically, too, considering the guidelines they link guides users to not do what they're doing.

Welcome to Hacker News. Since you’re new here, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the person who’s opinion you’re referring to and attempting to dismiss is one of the moderators of HN, and one of the authors and keepers of this site’s guidelines.

So you want to appeal to authority?

Re: Fossil Chat

#172
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.

If you watch a single branch and deactivate the "related" branches, you can avoid seeing all the "buggy commits": all merges in Fossil are what Git does when indicating "--no-ff". No branches are ever deleted, so the individual commits remain in the branch; the merge commit is always a single one.
Post reply on HN