Re: [dev] fossil scm

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:49:16PM +0200, pancake wrote:
> I have found that scm to be quite interesting (www.fossil-scm.org).
>
> What do you think about it? I have not started to use it, because I have
> all my code in mercurial,
> but I would be happy to move to fossil if results to be a decent
> alternative.
>
> The goods I found on it:
>
> *) written in C
> *) zero dependencies
> *) all over http
> *) single binary
> *) simple commands
>
> The bad:
>
> *) i think distributed internal webserver, wiki and bugtracker should be
> separated

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.

> *) dont know how it works for large or big projects

It depends on what definition of "big" you're using.

See: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/tip/www/stats.wiki

> I think fossil is far more smart than mercurial (no python), and can be
> a good alternative. It
> is not suckless, but gets closer to it :) >
> any comments?
>
> --pancake

-- 
Brad Harder
Method Logic Digital Consulting
http://methodlogic.net
http://twitter.com/bcharder