On Oct 21, 2016, at 5:57 PM, K. Fossil user <ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > > However, I was astonished by what a community manager answered to another guy.
You say that like you think I hold some kind of official title. I’m just another Fossil user, like you. When I used that term in the other thread, it was all-lowercase. Like you, I also don’t contribute much code to Fossil, so I also don’t have much say in how the project runs. When I give you my opinions about Fossil and the Fossil project, it is from that perspective. > > « You admitted to not using branches, apparently because you don’t see the > > point of them in a single-developer project » > > As a community manager if you said that to another guy, it means that he > should use branch even if he doesn't want to. I think one should use Fossil on its own terms, not try to treat it like Git, yes. I think the same way about all technology. When I write Perl code, I try not to write it in C++ style, and when I use Cygwin, I don’t get too upset when it imperfectly emulates Linux. Compatibility, interoperability and the Principle of Least Surprise are all good things, but sometimes you just have to learn a new way of doing things in order to work most efficiently. > For example, I don't want to use branch but I prefer tags even if branch is > better. Tags have nothing to do with branches of course ! Branches in Fossil are just auto-propagating tags. Under the hood they’re very nearly the same thing, which is why you can use them mostly interchangeably in Fossil commands. > a) It is said that SQLite is not good at concurrency. Thanks God someone, not > me, dare to say that SQLite is not good when it comes to concurrency ! I think you mean me as that “someone,” but I was just telling you something that DRH pointed out much earlier: https://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html And the only reason I pointed this “flaw” of SQLite out is the point out that for Fossil, the problem doesn’t matter, because your typical Fossil server simply doesn’t have all that much concurrency going on. If you feel I’m wrong, go port Fossil to Oracle or whatever, and then we’ll see if it’s gotten faster. I think it’ll get slower, but you go and prove me wrong. > b) It creates higher server loads that should not occur. According to who? And what does this have to do with my application of control theory to software project management? > c) it creates too much information so the Fossil file would grow too much for > no serious reasons. My largest Fossil repo is currently running at a 39:1 compression ratio. I think that’s fairly awesome. So again, [citation needed]. If you’re referring to the fact that Fossil doesn’t diff-compress pre-compressed binary blobs (e.g. JPEGs), point me at a DVCS that does. > Who said that marketing (e.g. poll, good communication, etc) is not needed in > the Fossil realm ? I don’t know. Who did say that? What *I* said is that answering user questions, triaging feature requests, and improving the Fossil feature set is not “marketing.” Marketing is an entirely different set of activities, which may also improve the standing of Fossil in the marketplace, but by different means. > PS: Have you read my unmet needs Warren ? Yes, and the impression I got is that the thing you are most concerned with is switching the community over to MatterMost. Personally, the exact method the community communicates is one of the least important parts of Fossil. I’d far rather time and effort be spent on Fossil itself rather than on chasing the IM/chat/email alternative of the month. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
