If I had to choose between Fossil and stone tablets, I would choose
stone tablets. Fossil lives up to its name.
tom jackson
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Jeff Rogers wrote:
> Jade Rubick wrote:
>
>> Unless we hear otherwise, so far I think we can summarize this thread as:
>>
>> Tom strongly d
Not sure if it meets your distributed wiki requirements but technically any
wiki attached to a github project can be used as a git repository itself,
making it distributed and version controlled like your code.
https://github.com/blog/699-making-github-more-open-git-backed-wikis
is a more comp
On 17/11/2010 2:13 PM, Jeff Rogers wrote:
There is no equivalent of github for fossil
Actually yes. See http://chiselapp.com/, though fossil and git have
fundamental differences in design and purpose.
See also
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki
http://www.
Jade Rubick wrote:
Unless we hear otherwise, so far I think we can summarize this thread as:
Tom strongly dislikes github.
Several other people favor it.
The rest don't care or haven't spoken up yet.
I'll toss in my 2 cents. For my recent projects I've begun to use
fossil. It has a distrib
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Jade Rubick wrote:
> The main argument for github is that it supports a public collaborative
> usage of git.
> Unless we hear otherwise, so far I think we can summarize this thread as:
> Tom strongly dislikes github.
> Several other people favor it.
> The rest don'
The main argument for github is that it supports a public collaborative usage
of git.
Unless we hear otherwise, so far I think we can summarize this thread as:
Tom strongly dislikes github.
Several other people favor it.
The rest don't care or haven't spoken up yet.
I personally think github i
