Re: [AOLSERVER] How about fossil? (Was: Git on SourceForge)

2010-11-18 Thread Alexey Pechnikov
I have about 10 fossil repositories and these work fine. Fossil is fast and reliable and have no XSS and other security holes. As example: http://sqlite.mobigroup.ru/home Fossil is not fashionable but I think this is unimportant. 2010/11/18 Tom Jackson > If I had to choose between Fossil and sto

Re: [AOLSERVER] How about fossil? (Was: Git on SourceForge)

2010-11-17 Thread Tom Jackson
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

Re: [AOLSERVER] How about fossil? (Was: Git on SourceForge)

2010-11-17 Thread Joseph Kondel
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

Re: [AOLSERVER] How about fossil? (Was: Git on SourceForge)

2010-11-17 Thread Jeff Hobbs
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.

[AOLSERVER] How about fossil? (Was: Git on SourceForge)

2010-11-17 Thread Jeff Rogers
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