3 ms·

I'm far from convinced by this article. It's starts by saying that it's not comparing git and fossil but just keeps trying to throw generalities at your face h

by boudin 5y ago

I'm far from convinced by this article. It's starts by saying that it's not comparing git and fossil but just keeps trying to throw generalities at your face how fossil is so much better and smarter than git. It sometimes compares git and all of a sudden compares github or gitlab, no reason given. So what is it about, comparing git, github or gitlab? Apparently git is to complex for developers, sorry but I have yet to see a developer not managing to work with git. Either I've always worked with geniuses or this is a non-problem.

tiagod 5y ago
The author is comparing with github/gitlab as fossil offers both VCS features, like git, but also features a Web interface with issues, wiki and forums, which you can only get with those third party products.
- boudin 5y ago
  Then the comparison would be fair if it would go through all the different options. Picking the one that is quite heavy to host like gitlab (but does way more than what fossil does by the way) for the purpose of saying that git sucks is misleading. There's options like gitea that are lightweight and super easy to host.
BoorishBears 5y ago
>Apparently git is to complex for developers, sorry but I have yet to see a developer not managing to work with git. Either I've always worked with geniuses or this is a non-problem. You must work with geniuses. No one I know has never been at the place where you just accept the tree is fucked, delete .git and paste your changes back into a fresh checkout. Granted now I understand things like git reflog so it's been many years since then, but git is as far from approachable as tooling gets...
- boudin 5y ago
  Thanks then, it means I must be managing my team right :) I've never seen a tree being broken, and needing this kind of action. Don't get me wrong, the git cli could definitely be improved, but as long as you have a clear workflow and map it to git actions it works well.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    You'd have to be a pretty bad manager to micromanage so hard that you're the reason someone's local repo is never broken... This is a local issue that usually bites a new developer. - Sometimes you can search/ask for a fix, sometimes you realize in the time it took to find that fix you could have just made a new local copy. I was a "productive developer" capable of solving real issues for a pretty long time before I was comfortable with "advanced Git", mostly from writing tooling with it. And there are plenty of brilliant developers who never really get past the basics. It seems pretty backwards that the tooling mainly meant for the background tasks like backing up and merging changes should be harder to master than the foreground tasks of actually building the stuff you put in Git...
    - boudin 5y ago
      You're talking about issues that I never witnessed anybody facing, that's all I have to say. You don't have to be an ass about it. You don't know me, and my managing style so you can keep your judgement for yourself. Git is not hard, most developers, from junior to experienced do fine with it with really little learning on their own, no need to micromanage anybody.
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        Lol what? Don't project your insecurities onto me... I literally said these are problems a manager will not witness unless they're micromanaging, where did I judge your management style? - Though to be blunt, this is starting to feel like the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. I mean how deeply familiar can you be with Git and still question how others find Git hard? Even Linus has admitted that Git is hard, but argues it's gotten easier over time. Of course things live on the internet forever, so even fresh beginners end up not learning about the newer, easier ways to do things.
nijave 5y ago
My impression was the author didn't like all the additional complexity git comes with (sure, you don't need to use it but it's still there) I think the mentions of software like GitHub were more in terms of workflow since apparently Fossil bundles all that together in a static binary (you don't have to integrate the tool chain yourself)
indymike 5y ago
fossil contains a lot more functionality than git by itself, so comparing it to git + gitlab or git + github kind of makes sense.
- boudin 5y ago
  Then it needs to be compared with all the options. There's git hosting solution that are really light and as easy to install than fossil. That's actually the thing that makes git hard to replace, there's a lot of tooling built around it.
  - indymike 5y ago
    > There's git hosting solution that are really light and as easy to install than fossil. I'm not sure that is really the case. Almost everything in the git universe is git + webserver + cli tool + scripts + gui tool. It really isn't the same... you have to concatenate an awful lot of tools to add fossil's base features to git. That said, I end up using git on everything but personal projects... then I use fossil.

by boudin 5y ago

tiagod 5y ago

The author is comparing with github/gitlab as fossil offers both VCS features, like git, but also features a Web interface with issues, wiki and forums, which you can only get with those third party products.

boudin 5y ago
Then the comparison would be fair if it would go through all the different options. Picking the one that is quite heavy to host like gitlab (but does way more than what fossil does by the way) for the purpose of saying that git sucks is misleading. There's options like gitea that are lightweight and super easy to host.

BoorishBears 5y ago

>Apparently git is to complex for developers, sorry but I have yet to see a developer not managing to work with git. Either I've always worked with geniuses or this is a non-problem. You must work with geniuses. No one I know has never been at the place where you just accept the tree is fucked, delete .git and paste your changes back into a fresh checkout. Granted now I understand things like git reflog so it's been many years since then, but git is as far from approachable as tooling gets...

boudin 5y ago
Thanks then, it means I must be managing my team right :) I've never seen a tree being broken, and needing this kind of action. Don't get me wrong, the git cli could definitely be improved, but as long as you have a clear workflow and map it to git actions it works well.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  You'd have to be a pretty bad manager to micromanage so hard that you're the reason someone's local repo is never broken... This is a local issue that usually bites a new developer. - Sometimes you can search/ask for a fix, sometimes you realize in the time it took to find that fix you could have just made a new local copy. I was a "productive developer" capable of solving real issues for a pretty long time before I was comfortable with "advanced Git", mostly from writing tooling with it. And there are plenty of brilliant developers who never really get past the basics. It seems pretty backwards that the tooling mainly meant for the background tasks like backing up and merging changes should be harder to master than the foreground tasks of actually building the stuff you put in Git...
  - boudin 5y ago
    You're talking about issues that I never witnessed anybody facing, that's all I have to say. You don't have to be an ass about it. You don't know me, and my managing style so you can keep your judgement for yourself. Git is not hard, most developers, from junior to experienced do fine with it with really little learning on their own, no need to micromanage anybody.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Lol what? Don't project your insecurities onto me... I literally said these are problems a manager will not witness unless they're micromanaging, where did I judge your management style? - Though to be blunt, this is starting to feel like the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. I mean how deeply familiar can you be with Git and still question how others find Git hard? Even Linus has admitted that Git is hard, but argues it's gotten easier over time. Of course things live on the internet forever, so even fresh beginners end up not learning about the newer, easier ways to do things.

nijave 5y ago

My impression was the author didn't like all the additional complexity git comes with (sure, you don't need to use it but it's still there) I think the mentions of software like GitHub were more in terms of workflow since apparently Fossil bundles all that together in a static binary (you don't have to integrate the tool chain yourself)

indymike 5y ago

fossil contains a lot more functionality than git by itself, so comparing it to git + gitlab or git + github kind of makes sense.

boudin 5y ago
Then it needs to be compared with all the options. There's git hosting solution that are really light and as easy to install than fossil. That's actually the thing that makes git hard to replace, there's a lot of tooling built around it.
- indymike 5y ago
  > There's git hosting solution that are really light and as easy to install than fossil. I'm not sure that is really the case. Almost everything in the git universe is git + webserver + cli tool + scripts + gui tool. It really isn't the same... you have to concatenate an awful lot of tools to add fossil's base features to git. That said, I end up using git on everything but personal projects... then I use fossil.