Re: [dev] fossil scm

From: Connor Lane Smith <>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:14:58 +0100

On 10/08/2010, <> wrote:
> The wiki/bugtracker integration is key to it's design principles. The
> repository is a complete collection of source files, documentation (wiki)
> and tickets (bugtracker). This means that as repositories are cloned,
> the new repository has a very complete view of the project, moreso than
> if tickets are stored in some third-party application.

I wonder whether this could be done another way. An hg repo could hold
all the source, documentation, and tickets; werc could produce the web
views for the docs and bugs; and a tracker could automatically push
recieved tickets. I don't know, it might not be as enjoyable to use. I
just naturally dislike fossil's monolithic solution.

Received on Tue Aug 10 2010 - 19:14:58 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Aug 10 2010 - 19:24:02 CEST