On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:08:13PM -0800, Zach Leslie wrote: > > http://www.fossil-scm.org/ > > > > I'm not fossil user, but it's BSD licensed in written in C. > > Baptise Daroussin probably could tell us more about fossil pro and cons. > > This misses one of of the main points raised in the original post. The > proliferation of git as a revision control system. > > Also, this particular tool bails out on the unix philosophy, with its web > gui, ticket tracker etc. Do one thing. Do it well. >
Look at the internal of fossil and how things are done in fossil and you would understand that the last sentence is totally wrong. Fossil has really nice features that could nicely fits with FreeBSD workflows and greatly improves it. It has most of the new shiny feature everyone can expect from a dvcs, but it also has it drawbacks: The converted repositories (I did convert docs, src and ports) with full history kept: branches, tags, etc. is huge and the first clone would be painful to do. On the other side you have multiple working copies open on the same clone which is really nice. Some of the operations can be slow, Jörg Sonnenberger wrote an analysis about this one the fossil wiki, but don't remember the link sorry. From my testing, apart from the do we really need a new scm question? I am a big fan of fossil and find it easier and cleaner than all the other scm I know, I use git for pkgng and other projects, I use a lot mercurial on some other area, and fossil remains my favorite :). But I really don't think it could fit FreeBSD's requirements as it is now. but there are lots of room of improvements. The learning curve to fossil is probably really easy. On of the last thing is that fossil lacks keyword expansion. That said I'm happy with svn on FreeBSD, I still from time to time do conversion of out different tree to fossil for fun, but no more and I won't advocate for any vcs change. Bapt
pgpCt99BR1uby.pgp
Description: PGP signature
