5 ms·

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 i

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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
    They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated. If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool. I get value out of it and am not meaningfully impacted by the issues you have with it in practice. I'm not a salesman and it's free software, so do what makes sense to you.
    - popmystack 10y ago
      >They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated. As an expert on myself, I must disagree. >If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool. I don't use it. But I think you need to remember what I replied to, as that's an ill-placed sentiment in this thread.

CMay 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated. If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool. I get value out of it and am not meaningfully impacted by the issues you have with it in practice. I'm not a salesman and it's free software, so do what makes sense to you.
  - popmystack 10y ago
    >They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated. As an expert on myself, I must disagree. >If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool. I don't use it. But I think you need to remember what I replied to, as that's an ill-placed sentiment in this thread.