4 ms·

This is a wonderful idea. The VCS, bug tracker, wiki, and web presence really should all be part of a packaged deal. Almost nobody uses just git -- they use gi

by jordigh 11y ago

This is a wonderful idea. The VCS, bug tracker, wiki, and web presence really should all be part of a packaged deal. Almost nobody uses just git -- they use github or gitlab. Very few people use Mercurial, because there is nowhere good to host it. Atlassian seems hell-bent on killing hg support off bitbucket, because few people use it, a very sad self-fulfilling prophesy. With offerings like gitlab, it might not make a huge difference, but contenders like Fossil or hg have some good non-git ideas worth exploring.

jimktrains2 11y ago
> Almost nobody uses just git -- they use github or gitlab. I don't understand what you mean. I know plenty of people that simply use SSH or local-only repositories. If you intend on sharing said repo, github is essentially cheap shared hosting (or did you also complain that people didn't run their own httpd?).
- jordigh 11y ago
  I know plenty of people that simply use SSH or local-only repositories. These people are the minority. Do you know at least 3 million people who use git without github? If not, you're nowhere near to saying that a majority of git users do not use github. And yes, having somewhere to host it is very important. Both Fossil and hg have an httpd built-in. I believe cgit or gitweb are not a simple "git serve" away?
  - crististm 11y ago
    We don't know how many people are using SSH git but you surely know they are much less than 3 million. Have you heard about Dunning-Kruger effect?
    - jordigh 11y ago
      Yes, I assume you are indicating that I think my skill is greater than it actually is? Which skill are you referring to? Or whose skill are you referring to?
      - crististm 11y ago
        You are too sure of your conclusion without a justification. Neither I nor you know 3 million people and their habits. Yet you are certain there is no such a group of 3 million people that will contradict your conclusion. It's not about your skills. It's about your confidence based on nothing.
  - jimktrains2 11y ago
    > Do you know at least 3 million people who use git without github? Why must one have never used github while also not using github? I have many private repos I share amongst my machines, but I also publish projects on github when I want them to be public. > Both Fossil and hg have an httpd built-in. That seems horrible. Why do I want these features built in when they can be delegated to other applications (which I can choose among based on their features and not forced to use the one supplied?)
    - jordigh 11y ago
      You can use another httpd if you want to. It's just nice to have one built in if you don't.
      - jimktrains2 11y ago
        Why add the complexity to the scm? That's not its job.
koko775 11y ago
> Almost nobody uses just git -- they use github or gitlab. Your points are made in a needlessly provocative manner. Tons of people roll their own interfaces to their source control, and a lot of people benefit from somewhat centralized repositories. Not only is there room for both, but I don't see any data indicating how prevalent private, non-GitHub repositories are, or how those would even be counted accurately given the distributed model Almost nobody? Very few people use Mercurial? Nowhere good? Hell-bent on killing? Few people use it? very sad self-fulfilling prophesy? Jeez, there's opinionated, then there's recklessly authoritative. Mercurial isn't as popular as git, but neither are dependent on GitHub/bitbucket for continued relevance. To address your point more directly, I personally think that merging the concepts of versioned data and developer tasks makes for less flexibility; I prefer simple, pluggable, and modular to integrated when it comes to version control.
- w_t_payne 11y ago
  The approach that I am taking is (at the moment) highly integrated -- and that is the thing that I am most concerned about -- I'd rather like to find a way to turn it into a set of disparate tools that use common (open) interfaces to work together -- But I haven't found a way to navigate towards that just yet.
- jordigh 11y ago
  > Tons of people roll their own interfaces to their source control, And how do they compare with github's megatons? I argue the numbers are not comparable. My most generous estimate is that less than 5% of all git users work without ever touching Github. > Mercurial isn't as popular as git, but neither are dependent on GitHub/bitbucket for continued relevance. I am convinced that if anything ever replaces git, it will have to come with a website that greatly simplifies deploying software. Git alone is not enough for sharing with the masses -- it requires Github or equivalent. I am also certain that git's meteoric rise would have been completely impossible without Github. Every time I see a newcomer trying to deploy a Mercurial repo, I see them struggling with Bitbucket's implementation of hg hosting. It pains me that there is nothing better to direct them to.
  - 11y ago
abertolli 11y ago
That is by far the biggest attraction for me (to use fossil). Part of me doesn't like having all those pieces combined into one tool, but after the Google Code shutdown, I've realized you can't rely on external hosting to keep your code.

by jordigh 11y ago

jimktrains2 11y ago

> Almost nobody uses just git -- they use github or gitlab. I don't understand what you mean. I know plenty of people that simply use SSH or local-only repositories. If you intend on sharing said repo, github is essentially cheap shared hosting (or did you also complain that people didn't run their own httpd?).

jordigh 11y ago
I know plenty of people that simply use SSH or local-only repositories. These people are the minority. Do you know at least 3 million people who use git without github? If not, you're nowhere near to saying that a majority of git users do not use github. And yes, having somewhere to host it is very important. Both Fossil and hg have an httpd built-in. I believe cgit or gitweb are not a simple "git serve" away?
- crististm 11y ago
  We don't know how many people are using SSH git but you surely know they are much less than 3 million. Have you heard about Dunning-Kruger effect?
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Yes, I assume you are indicating that I think my skill is greater than it actually is? Which skill are you referring to? Or whose skill are you referring to?
    - crististm 11y ago
      You are too sure of your conclusion without a justification. Neither I nor you know 3 million people and their habits. Yet you are certain there is no such a group of 3 million people that will contradict your conclusion. It's not about your skills. It's about your confidence based on nothing.
- jimktrains2 11y ago
  > Do you know at least 3 million people who use git without github? Why must one have never used github while also not using github? I have many private repos I share amongst my machines, but I also publish projects on github when I want them to be public. > Both Fossil and hg have an httpd built-in. That seems horrible. Why do I want these features built in when they can be delegated to other applications (which I can choose among based on their features and not forced to use the one supplied?)
  - jordigh 11y ago
    You can use another httpd if you want to. It's just nice to have one built in if you don't.
    - jimktrains2 11y ago
      Why add the complexity to the scm? That's not its job.

koko775 11y ago

> Almost nobody uses just git -- they use github or gitlab. Your points are made in a needlessly provocative manner. Tons of people roll their own interfaces to their source control, and a lot of people benefit from somewhat centralized repositories. Not only is there room for both, but I don't see any data indicating how prevalent private, non-GitHub repositories are, or how those would even be counted accurately given the distributed model Almost nobody? Very few people use Mercurial? Nowhere good? Hell-bent on killing? Few people use it? very sad self-fulfilling prophesy? Jeez, there's opinionated, then there's recklessly authoritative. Mercurial isn't as popular as git, but neither are dependent on GitHub/bitbucket for continued relevance. To address your point more directly, I personally think that merging the concepts of versioned data and developer tasks makes for less flexibility; I prefer simple, pluggable, and modular to integrated when it comes to version control.

w_t_payne 11y ago
The approach that I am taking is (at the moment) highly integrated -- and that is the thing that I am most concerned about -- I'd rather like to find a way to turn it into a set of disparate tools that use common (open) interfaces to work together -- But I haven't found a way to navigate towards that just yet.
jordigh 11y ago
> Tons of people roll their own interfaces to their source control, And how do they compare with github's megatons? I argue the numbers are not comparable. My most generous estimate is that less than 5% of all git users work without ever touching Github. > Mercurial isn't as popular as git, but neither are dependent on GitHub/bitbucket for continued relevance. I am convinced that if anything ever replaces git, it will have to come with a website that greatly simplifies deploying software. Git alone is not enough for sharing with the masses -- it requires Github or equivalent. I am also certain that git's meteoric rise would have been completely impossible without Github. Every time I see a newcomer trying to deploy a Mercurial repo, I see them struggling with Bitbucket's implementation of hg hosting. It pains me that there is nothing better to direct them to.
- 11y ago

abertolli 11y ago

That is by far the biggest attraction for me (to use fossil). Part of me doesn't like having all those pieces combined into one tool, but after the Google Code shutdown, I've realized you can't rely on external hosting to keep your code.