OK, let me rephrase my question. Is there any reason to believe that fossil will not scale up well to a large project? I have very little experience with SCM systems, and I'm just wondering if fossil was designed with scalability in mind. I have no reason to believe it wasn't, but I'd just like to be sure before I recommend it for a large project. My organization currently uses Clearcase for a project with something like 20 developers and 2MLOC. Would I be crazy to recommend fossil? Thanks.
Russ P. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski <l...@maxnet.org.pl>wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2011, at 20:50 , Gour wrote: > > > Russ> I'd be interested to know if anyone is using fossil for a "large" > > Russ> software project. How large? Oh, let's say ten or more > > Russ> developers. If so, how is it working out? > > > > Well, considering that Sqlite3 is used as storage back-end, I believe > > you can explore that part. > > > > The other parts in Fossil seems to be very robust, imho. > > Taking into account some DVCS's based on much less robust back-ends*, like > Git or Mercurial, I guess that Sqlite3 is not going to be the problematic > part. > > * - or do you want to argue that heaps ad-hoc text files are more robust > than one of the most popular databases? > > > Kind regards, > Remigiusz Modrzejewski > > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- http://RussP.us
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
