4 ms·

Without having looked into the details... I do rather like the idea of an SCM with a built-in ticketing / documentation (wiki / markdown rendering system). The

Without having looked into the details... I do rather like the idea of an SCM with a built-in ticketing / documentation (wiki / markdown rendering system). These are both things that every project ends up needing, but end up with some different solution, which then ends up with a loose, brittle, custom integration with the SCM - using your ticket name for branches, but the having to look up the details on a website - checkin hooks, these kinds of hacks. It's not too difficult to imagine some simple, robust setup where the ticket state is and documentation (markdown) is store in the SCM, and you can view it either using the command-line, or fire up a local webserver embedded in the scm tool.

qznc 10y ago
On the other hand, it does not make much sense for ticketing and documentation to be distributed. They inherently must be centralized for a project.
- tacostakohashi 10y ago
  I disagree completely - I think these things have the same properties as source code. Everybody thought SCM had to be centralized too, until it turned out that it didn't. I can see the same benefits of making local changes to tickets and documentation, then sharing those changes later when they're in a good state.
  - __david__ 10y ago
    You might like https://github.com/brandonson/evict https://github.com/brandonson/evict. I used to use `ditz` but it was abandoned years ago and was tied to Ruby 1.8 in a bad way. I've been meaning to switch to evict but haven't ever been able to get it to compile :-).
    - lvh 10y ago
      IIRC, ditz and evict and b-e and ticgit and... all don't solve a problem for public projects which fossil does: random people on the Internet need to be able to submit bug reports.
- lvh 10y ago
  Because fossil comes with a web server and a wiki, there typically is one blessed instance for any project. That's not too weird; after all, that's basically true fro pretty much everything maintained on GitHub too -- the only difference is you get the issue tracker and wiki in the repo.

qznc 10y ago

On the other hand, it does not make much sense for ticketing and documentation to be distributed. They inherently must be centralized for a project.

tacostakohashi 10y ago
I disagree completely - I think these things have the same properties as source code. Everybody thought SCM had to be centralized too, until it turned out that it didn't. I can see the same benefits of making local changes to tickets and documentation, then sharing those changes later when they're in a good state.
- __david__ 10y ago
  You might like https://github.com/brandonson/evict https://github.com/brandonson/evict. I used to use `ditz` but it was abandoned years ago and was tied to Ruby 1.8 in a bad way. I've been meaning to switch to evict but haven't ever been able to get it to compile :-).
  - lvh 10y ago
    IIRC, ditz and evict and b-e and ticgit and... all don't solve a problem for public projects which fossil does: random people on the Internet need to be able to submit bug reports.
lvh 10y ago
Because fossil comes with a web server and a wiki, there typically is one blessed instance for any project. That's not too weird; after all, that's basically true fro pretty much everything maintained on GitHub too -- the only difference is you get the issue tracker and wiki in the repo.