1/ Git is better than Fossil when it comes to the job to be done. period.
2/ nine days after first commit is not evidence of efficiency.
a) it could be an evidence of issues. Windows compilation issue was reported
after commits in the past.That kind of issue is totally abnormal.
b) The version numbering is rubbish X.Y when everyone [say serious projects] do
x.y.z ...Did someone notice Google Chrome numbering ? Huh ?
c) debian and slackware do take very long time before stable releases.IMHO
debian and slackware teams are (very far) better than will ever be the Fossil
team whatever you may think.
d) not to mention that when it comes to security, the Fossil Team is not aware
about it...(who is stupid enough to use inetd ? Fossil claim they do ! wow !)
3/ If Fossil is so the best, why don't people would like to use it ? There are
many website that host Fossil repository ...
4/ Ok it's Warren comments ... So I don't take it too seriously. I like to read
his comments when I've got times so I could laugh, sometimes loudly...I urge
Warren to sometimes talk about security : it's VERY amusing...(The MD5 discuss
: wow)I say : SOMETIMES, not every day...
Regards
K.
De : Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com>
À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 10 mars 2017 17h32
Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1
On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
>
> Fossil version 2.1 is now available from the download pages.
…after 9 days from first commit to final release.
Beat that, Git!
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
