4 ms·
You're conflating two different arguments: not using modern tools, and not accepting outside contributions. It's certainly possible that limiting contributions
by Ar-Curunir 4y ago
You're conflating two different arguments: not using modern tools, and not accepting outside contributions. It's certainly possible that limiting contributions to a set of trusted contributors helps things move smoothly.
However it's not clear at all that using old tools has the same effect.
- notRobot 4y agoThey don't use old tools, they use different tools. Git development started in 2005, Fossil development started in 2006, they'ré equally modern, and largely do the same things, just in different ways.
- diffxx 4y agoAlso, Fossil is essentially implemented _in_ SQLite. Fossil is used to develop SQLite which is used to implement Fossil. It's a virtuous cycle. For the SQLite project, using Fossil is obviously superior to git. This doesn't mean that arbitrary projects should use Fossil over git.
- ThunderSizzle 4y agoThe opposite can be said though, but git arbitrarily won over a bunch of other DVCS systems (another e.g. hg), mainly because of bandwagon and marketing.
- ok_dad 4y ago> old tools I have some of my great-grandpa's carpentry tools, and I use them often. I guess I should go out and replace perfectly good tools with new stuff from a big store like Home Depot or Lowe's?
- JAlexoid 4y agoPeople forget that Stanley #4 plane hasn't really changed in over 100 years. It's still one of the best tools out there. We dumped CVS because it was a poor tool, for the time. Subversion was better. Then completely distributed systems became better, because connectivity and computational power came about.
- tolciho 4y agoCVS never managed to wedge itself and eat my files like Subversion did. I went back to CVS.