3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoYou 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 agoIIRC, 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 agoBecause 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.