4 ms·

I started to use it for one large project a few months back as I liked the idea of having an integrated issue tracker/docs/wiki/etc. In the end I wasn't a huge

I started to use it for one large project a few months back as I liked the idea of having an integrated issue tracker/docs/wiki/etc. In the end I wasn't a huge fan of fossil overall as its implementation felt clunky and I reverted back to git. I'd say most of it's problems can be attributed to a lack of polish due to the much smaller user base compared to other options like git.

rkeene2 10y ago
What issues did you have ? Fossil is usually pretty easy to cleanup any dangling wires, if they can be coherently identified to people who may not see them in the same way as you.
- fundamental 10y ago
  It's been a while, but I roughly recall: The formatting in the wiki was unusual; it was difficult to access wiki/doc/issues outside of the builtin webserver (for tickets I ended up building a TUI as a workaround https://github.com/fundamental/fs-tickets https://github.com/fundamental/fs-tickets (the original fossil repo is sitting around somewhere)); there was no 'fossil grep'; the lack of a staging area was annoying when sorting through exploratory changes (git add -p and vim's git-fugitive options make the staging area hugely useful); attaching files to issues/wiki/etc was difficult; setting up a remote which could be pushed/pulled from (with multiple machines) was difficult; and I recall the username + password combo failing in a way that I never diagnosed. Overall I'd say fossil has its share of warts and it currently doesn't justify the contribution barrier it introduces with enough in return.
  - rkeene2 10y ago
    Many of these issues have likely been resolved. Wiki supports the wiki format, markdown, and HTML now. There is now a "fossil search" command for full-text search (including artifacts, if enabled). I've never had a username/password failure so no idea what that could be. For tickets, icomment is probably the solution you want but it's not very intuitive. git add -p doesn't require a staging area per se, and I could see that being added as part of the commit process... but usually I like to test my changes a little bit before committing (e.g., does this even compile) and I can't do that on a partial commit.

rkeene2 10y ago

What issues did you have ? Fossil is usually pretty easy to cleanup any dangling wires, if they can be coherently identified to people who may not see them in the same way as you.

fundamental 10y ago
It's been a while, but I roughly recall: The formatting in the wiki was unusual; it was difficult to access wiki/doc/issues outside of the builtin webserver (for tickets I ended up building a TUI as a workaround https://github.com/fundamental/fs-tickets https://github.com/fundamental/fs-tickets (the original fossil repo is sitting around somewhere)); there was no 'fossil grep'; the lack of a staging area was annoying when sorting through exploratory changes (git add -p and vim's git-fugitive options make the staging area hugely useful); attaching files to issues/wiki/etc was difficult; setting up a remote which could be pushed/pulled from (with multiple machines) was difficult; and I recall the username + password combo failing in a way that I never diagnosed. Overall I'd say fossil has its share of warts and it currently doesn't justify the contribution barrier it introduces with enough in return.
- rkeene2 10y ago
  Many of these issues have likely been resolved. Wiki supports the wiki format, markdown, and HTML now. There is now a "fossil search" command for full-text search (including artifacts, if enabled). I've never had a username/password failure so no idea what that could be. For tickets, icomment is probably the solution you want but it's not very intuitive. git add -p doesn't require a staging area per se, and I could see that being added as part of the commit process... but usually I like to test my changes a little bit before committing (e.g., does this even compile) and I can't do that on a partial commit.