4 ms·

> The inbuilt UI, although not polished If your experience was more than about half a year old, you might want to look at it again. The default skin changed re

by wyoung2 10y ago

> The inbuilt UI, although not polished If your experience was more than about half a year old, you might want to look at it again. The default skin changed recently to one that is much more of a modern web UI. It is easy to switch the skin on an existing repository or to customize it to behave the way you like. Fossil currently ships with 10 distinct skins, by my count.

xwattt 10y ago
> skin The problem of fossil UI is not a skin. Why that annoying commit hashes are so big? Do you really read them first? Take a look at github UI: every button and label have meaningful place and polished. And that is the problem of most github clones - they forgot to hire a designer.
- wyoung2 10y ago
  > Why that annoying commit hashes are so big? In most places, Fossil shows an abbreviated form of the hash, typically 8-10 characters since Fossil, like Git, will accept any unique prefix of an artifact hash to refer to that artifact. Here is a GitHub commit page: https://github.com/aioutecism/amVim-for-VSCode/commits/master and here is a Fossil timeline page, which serves much the same purpose: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline In the fossil case, the hashes are one character longer, and enclosed in square brackets instead of a roundrect. This is a serious complaint? > Do you really read them first? No, you ignore them completely until you need to refer to one, and then you copy-paste it, just like with Git. > every button and label have meaningful place and polished Which button or label in the default Fossil skin is not in a meaningful place, and which shows a lack of polish? Be specific. > they forgot to hire a designer. I'm pretty sure the differences between the two stem not from forgetfulness but from the fact that GitHub, Inc. employs 608 people, is closed source, and has a revenue model, whereas Fossil is a side project of a company that's probably 1/100 that size and grows mainly by open source user code contributions.
Karupan 10y ago
Yup, I used it about 2 years back. Will give it a shot again. Thanks!

by wyoung2 10y ago

xwattt 10y ago

> skin The problem of fossil UI is not a skin. Why that annoying commit hashes are so big? Do you really read them first? Take a look at github UI: every button and label have meaningful place and polished. And that is the problem of most github clones - they forgot to hire a designer.

wyoung2 10y ago
> Why that annoying commit hashes are so big? In most places, Fossil shows an abbreviated form of the hash, typically 8-10 characters since Fossil, like Git, will accept any unique prefix of an artifact hash to refer to that artifact. Here is a GitHub commit page: https://github.com/aioutecism/amVim-for-VSCode/commits/master and here is a Fossil timeline page, which serves much the same purpose: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline In the fossil case, the hashes are one character longer, and enclosed in square brackets instead of a roundrect. This is a serious complaint? > Do you really read them first? No, you ignore them completely until you need to refer to one, and then you copy-paste it, just like with Git. > every button and label have meaningful place and polished Which button or label in the default Fossil skin is not in a meaningful place, and which shows a lack of polish? Be specific. > they forgot to hire a designer. I'm pretty sure the differences between the two stem not from forgetfulness but from the fact that GitHub, Inc. employs 608 people, is closed source, and has a revenue model, whereas Fossil is a side project of a company that's probably 1/100 that size and grows mainly by open source user code contributions.

Karupan 10y ago

Yup, I used it about 2 years back. Will give it a shot again. Thanks!