4 ms·

What I don't like about the approach is that they announce to prominently use git as a modern DVCS, which is not BSD software. I would rather see improvements i

by raimue 13y ago

What I don't like about the approach is that they announce to prominently use git as a modern DVCS, which is not BSD software. I would rather see improvements in the existing BSD-licensed VCS. Currently, the only candidate under active development would be http://fossil-scm.org/ http://fossil-scm.org/. Or heck, maybe even start an initiative for a DVCS implementation under a BSD license that is able to work with the git protocol. This could even use the git disk format, so you can still use git in parallel until it's feature complete.

davvid 13y ago
Users don't want to learn yet another fossil scm; Git is ubiquitous. It seems like a wasted effort to reimplement Git just because of its license. libgit2 exists and has been making steady progress, and its license is permissive enough.
- bch 13y ago
  I can't speak for "users", but fossil is an absolute joy to use, easy to pick up, and has features that I'm not aware of in any other SCM (hello, built-in first-class tickets). libgit2 has been "making progress" for a long time -- it's barely used in github (it's one or two little features of libgit that are harnessed internally, according to the githubber I talked to at a meetup), and, without trying to insult the developers/development, I seems more accurate to say libgit is "plodding along slowly". With "critical mass" as one of gits features, this is sort of surprising. I suspect it speaks to the complexity of git, but I'm not positive.
- raimue 13y ago
  With this argumentation you could also say it's wasted effort to implement a BSD kernel because Linux exists. Thanks for the pointer to libgit2.
heidar 13y ago
Isn't OpenCVS being worked on too? I don't think it's decentralized though.
- clarry 13y ago
  Sadly, no. It's pretty much dead. As far as I can tell it's fairly complete, but many or most users have switched back to GNU cvs due to long standing bugs and some missing stuff nobody's interested in working on. The only commits to OpenCVS I recall seeing are mostly janitorial or tiny fixes -- no major work.

by raimue 13y ago

davvid 13y ago

Users don't want to learn yet another fossil scm; Git is ubiquitous. It seems like a wasted effort to reimplement Git just because of its license. libgit2 exists and has been making steady progress, and its license is permissive enough.

bch 13y ago
I can't speak for "users", but fossil is an absolute joy to use, easy to pick up, and has features that I'm not aware of in any other SCM (hello, built-in first-class tickets). libgit2 has been "making progress" for a long time -- it's barely used in github (it's one or two little features of libgit that are harnessed internally, according to the githubber I talked to at a meetup), and, without trying to insult the developers/development, I seems more accurate to say libgit is "plodding along slowly". With "critical mass" as one of gits features, this is sort of surprising. I suspect it speaks to the complexity of git, but I'm not positive.
raimue 13y ago
With this argumentation you could also say it's wasted effort to implement a BSD kernel because Linux exists. Thanks for the pointer to libgit2.

heidar 13y ago

Isn't OpenCVS being worked on too? I don't think it's decentralized though.

clarry 13y ago
Sadly, no. It's pretty much dead. As far as I can tell it's fairly complete, but many or most users have switched back to GNU cvs due to long standing bugs and some missing stuff nobody's interested in working on. The only commits to OpenCVS I recall seeing are mostly janitorial or tiny fixes -- no major work.