On Thursday 21 January 2010 11:46:23 Daniel Carrera wrote: > As a new user, so far I am *NOT* finding fossil simple. For example, my > experience trying to setup a server and pulling from it has been less > than stellar. ... > a few days, I am leaning to think that fossil is *not* that simple and > that it is *not* suitable for beginners who don't have a lot of patience > or knowledge.
If you have ever used svn or git, you will understand just how easy fossil is by comparison. It is up to you as the "sysadmin" to set things up so they are easy for the less experienced users. It may be that something like svn is more suited to your users (though as sysadmin, you will not be happy). I am currently evaluating whether migrating my current users (at work) to Fossil is worth the extra time I will have to spend educating them. Certainly from a sysadmin standpoint, Fossil is much better. If there were an "svn-to-fossil" conversion utility, I would probably go for it right away. I've already switched over for my personal projects. No source-control system is easier to use than Fossil, in my experience. Certainly not one which allows for decentralized development. However, the concepts need to be understood before diving in. As Michael pointed out, your mileage may vary... -- For privacy, my GPG key signature is: AD29415D
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
