4 ms·

<3 Fossil. I wish it were more popular so I could use it on non-personal projects and still have a hope of attracting collaborators...

CMay 11y ago
Yeah, fossil is all I use. It's so clean, tiny and self contained with no install or bloat. I've always been in love with software written that way. It makes me look at things like git as just a product of engineers that can get the job done, but don't know what it means to write good software or use imagination. Being fair, fossil performance on giant scale projects might not compare quite as well against git or proprietary solutions like Perforce, but for the large majority of projects I expect it is more than adequate.
- popmystack 11y ago
  > but don't know what it means to write good software or use imagination. You can't do patches. You can't rebase. You can't rename files. Tell me all about this good software and imagination you speak of?
  - richieadler 11y ago
    > You can't do patches. You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar. > You can't rebase. You have alternatives. The work philosophy is different, though. > You can't rename files. False.
    - popmystack 11y ago
      >You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar. Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do. >The work philosophy is different, though. That's an apology if I've ever seen one. Again, not the same. >False. Rename a file. Then try to merge. Tell me what happens.
      - penguinonrocket 11y ago
        >Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do. Interesting. That's basically what the people who suggested bundles (a Hg feature) said about patches. I've used both as appropriate. Handy that Fossil has both.
  - CMay 11y ago
    Rename: https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/help/rename https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/help/rename - Merge only merges content, but the content does get updated between renamed files. Also note that while rename and mv work similarly, only mv can be used with --hard to also rename the actual file on the drive. If you know of an issue with renaming, you should report it on the bug tracker. Patches: You can select any 2 commits and create a patch between them ( http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/vpatch?from=cbda43e71bda52f0&to=ed36875ff761fe9e http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/vpatch?from=cbda43e71bda52f0&to=e... ). If you want to apply the patch, you can just use patch. Whether patch itself should be integrated directly into fossil is I guess something people can argue over. I don't use patches often, but haven't had issues with them. Rebase: This is what Hipp has to say - http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil-scm.user/2695 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil... These things may not be exactly how you prefer them, but you're misinterpreting my point about good software and imagination. Almost no software in existence is perfect for everyone in every scenario, but that doesn't also mean that no software is good.
    - popmystack 11y ago
      Fossil leaves me with no reason to use it. What it can do, Git and Mercurial can do better. Saying that no software fits the use case for everyone, everywhere is completely irrelevant. Other software not fitting into every mold completely, while fossil doesn't really bring anything to the table to cover what other solutions don't, doesn't really justify its existence as a solution in any way.
      - CMay 11y ago
        If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil, then I guess fossil isn't what you need, because fossil is different. I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration, though. Use whatever you like, these aren't football teams. :P
        popmystack 11y ago
        >I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration Please do not devolve the conversation by making outlandish statements that have no bearing on the conversation. >If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil That's the exact opposite point I made though. Fossil constrains me in how I work and how I accomplish certain tasks -- with no benefit. Neither Git or Mercurial do that. What Fossil can do, both Git and Mercurial can do better. So why would I choose Fossil?

CMay 11y ago

Yeah, fossil is all I use. It's so clean, tiny and self contained with no install or bloat. I've always been in love with software written that way. It makes me look at things like git as just a product of engineers that can get the job done, but don't know what it means to write good software or use imagination. Being fair, fossil performance on giant scale projects might not compare quite as well against git or proprietary solutions like Perforce, but for the large majority of projects I expect it is more than adequate.

popmystack 11y ago
> but don't know what it means to write good software or use imagination. You can't do patches. You can't rebase. You can't rename files. Tell me all about this good software and imagination you speak of?
- richieadler 11y ago
  > You can't do patches. You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar. > You can't rebase. You have alternatives. The work philosophy is different, though. > You can't rename files. False.
  - popmystack 11y ago
    >You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar. Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do. >The work philosophy is different, though. That's an apology if I've ever seen one. Again, not the same. >False. Rename a file. Then try to merge. Tell me what happens.
    - penguinonrocket 11y ago
      >Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do. Interesting. That's basically what the people who suggested bundles (a Hg feature) said about patches. I've used both as appropriate. Handy that Fossil has both.
- CMay 11y ago
  Rename: https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/help/rename https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/help/rename - Merge only merges content, but the content does get updated between renamed files. Also note that while rename and mv work similarly, only mv can be used with --hard to also rename the actual file on the drive. If you know of an issue with renaming, you should report it on the bug tracker. Patches: You can select any 2 commits and create a patch between them ( http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/vpatch?from=cbda43e71bda52f0&to=ed36875ff761fe9e http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/vpatch?from=cbda43e71bda52f0&to=e... ). If you want to apply the patch, you can just use patch. Whether patch itself should be integrated directly into fossil is I guess something people can argue over. I don't use patches often, but haven't had issues with them. Rebase: This is what Hipp has to say - http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil-scm.user/2695 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil... These things may not be exactly how you prefer them, but you're misinterpreting my point about good software and imagination. Almost no software in existence is perfect for everyone in every scenario, but that doesn't also mean that no software is good.
  - popmystack 11y ago
    Fossil leaves me with no reason to use it. What it can do, Git and Mercurial can do better. Saying that no software fits the use case for everyone, everywhere is completely irrelevant. Other software not fitting into every mold completely, while fossil doesn't really bring anything to the table to cover what other solutions don't, doesn't really justify its existence as a solution in any way.
    - CMay 11y ago
      If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil, then I guess fossil isn't what you need, because fossil is different. I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration, though. Use whatever you like, these aren't football teams. :P
      - popmystack 11y ago
        >I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration Please do not devolve the conversation by making outlandish statements that have no bearing on the conversation. >If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil That's the exact opposite point I made though. Fossil constrains me in how I work and how I accomplish certain tasks -- with no benefit. Neither Git or Mercurial do that. What Fossil can do, both Git and Mercurial can do better. So why would I choose Fossil?