4 ms·

I use the heck out of fossil and have little idea how it works underneath. I consider fossil the gold standard for a good versioning system ui. I don't think gi

by somat 4y ago

I use the heck out of fossil and have little idea how it works underneath. I consider fossil the gold standard for a good versioning system ui. I don't think git has any excuse for being as weird as it is. fossil init repo; make a new fossil repository fossil open repo; open a fossil repository somewhere fossil add file; note: very different than git add. in fact I was very confused by git add, in fossil the repository knows what files are managed by it and there is no staging area. so you only use "fossil add" when adding a new file. If you move a file use "fossil mv" to let fossil know what you did. Along with "rm" when you remove a file. The staging area still feels like an unnecessary added bit of friction. fossil commit There are others I use often "merge", "sync", "revert" but they tend do what the command appears to do. Speaking of revert, the git equivalent is really strange , even among the rest of the strange git ui. Shit! I messed something up and want to revert back to the last committed change, easy, just run the command "git reset --hard HEAD"

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
The bad thing is that fossil allows the upstream to make destructive changes to client's copy of code. That's a big no no.
- owyn 4y ago
  Until you need it. :)
- somat 4y ago
  So does git, in fact, without a better explanation of what exactly you mean, I would say upstream making changes to the the clients code is the core useful property of a version control system.
osigurdson 4y ago
git init . git add file git commit -am "my message" Pretty simple really. You don't need to think about staging if you don't want to.
- dataflow 4y ago
  Is that a typo or intentional? If you did git add, you don't want commit -a, right?
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    I believe these were supposed to map to what its parent comment has listed.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    "git add" is used in this context to add an untracked file (like the fossil example). git init . vi file (initial content) git add file git commit -am "first commit" vi file (make changes) git commit -am "second commit" Basically if you use commit -am, you never have to worry about staging - which is most of the time imo. In the rare case where you want to avoid committing something that has changed use git add to stage individual files.
seba_dos1 4y ago
How do you choose which changes go into a commit and which don't without an equivalent of a staging area?
- somat 4y ago
  I don't use git a lot, so I am not all that familiar with it's work flow. But I think fossil assumes a change will go into the commit so you use the stash command to hide items you don't want in. while git assumes a change does not go in a commit so you use add on files that you want in. A bigger question is what to do when you only want specific chunks from the diff in your commit. I tend to faff around with stash, interactive sdiff and hand editing the patch when I need to dissect a chunk, a situation I feel could be better.
  - reddit_clone 4y ago
    Emacs/Magit can do that sort of things easily. You can mark a region in a diff and add that to staging if you want. Magit is probably the best chrome for Git I personally think.

by somat 4y ago

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago

The bad thing is that fossil allows the upstream to make destructive changes to client's copy of code. That's a big no no.

owyn 4y ago
Until you need it. :)
somat 4y ago
So does git, in fact, without a better explanation of what exactly you mean, I would say upstream making changes to the the clients code is the core useful property of a version control system.

osigurdson 4y ago

git init . git add file git commit -am "my message" Pretty simple really. You don't need to think about staging if you don't want to.

dataflow 4y ago
Is that a typo or intentional? If you did git add, you don't want commit -a, right?
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  I believe these were supposed to map to what its parent comment has listed.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  "git add" is used in this context to add an untracked file (like the fossil example). git init . vi file (initial content) git add file git commit -am "first commit" vi file (make changes) git commit -am "second commit" Basically if you use commit -am, you never have to worry about staging - which is most of the time imo. In the rare case where you want to avoid committing something that has changed use git add to stage individual files.

seba_dos1 4y ago

How do you choose which changes go into a commit and which don't without an equivalent of a staging area?

somat 4y ago
I don't use git a lot, so I am not all that familiar with it's work flow. But I think fossil assumes a change will go into the commit so you use the stash command to hide items you don't want in. while git assumes a change does not go in a commit so you use add on files that you want in. A bigger question is what to do when you only want specific chunks from the diff in your commit. I tend to faff around with stash, interactive sdiff and hand editing the patch when I need to dissect a chunk, a situation I feel could be better.
- reddit_clone 4y ago
  Emacs/Magit can do that sort of things easily. You can mark a region in a diff and add that to staging if you want. Magit is probably the best chrome for Git I personally think.