Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Unless you delete .git your checkout is always in well defined state. > No, it's not. i once literally had one of the libgit maintainers at my desk for a full hour trying to get my repo (of a project we were both

[fossil-users] Error in search FTS repository

Hello, I tried to search on sqlite.org repository for 'mmap', it showed too many results so I re-searched with 'mmap(' because I wanted the function call (note the additional '('). https://www.sqlite.org/src/search?s=mmap%28=all SQLITE_ERROR: statement aborts at 8: [INSERT INTO

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Hmmm I'm in a loquacious sort of mood and this spiel got long so I'm adding a summary blurb, I recommend read the blurb and skip the rest. Summary: Modest needs of a lone developer not doing branching etc. can be met with file system based methodology. Even so IMHO an SCM is still a

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Matt Welland wrote: > Modest needs of a lone developer not doing branching etc. can be met with > file system based methodology. Even so IMHO an SCM is still a productively > booster once learned. > +1 > s quite doable. For someone who

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sub, 2015-10-31 at 14:21 +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: >    No.  I had a checkout of a repository which was working fine.  One > day I suddenly couldn't do things I have been doing all along with it > (uncomplicated daily tasks; pull, commit, merge); git told me that my > repository was broken. 

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Matt Welland > wrote: > > [snip] > (i) Is fossil that much less arcane? Last I checked mv, cp and rm don't >> work the same as Unix, an ongoing annoyance for

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Matt Welland > wrote: > >> BTW, to some extent it is ok for fossil to be opinionated software that >> strives to dictate how to do your work. However take that

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Matt Welland wrote: > BTW, to some extent it is ok for fossil to be opinionated software that > strives to dictate how to do your work. However take that model very far > and you quickly alienate people. Given that perspective, why would

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 31/10/15 06:27, Michal Suchanek wrote: [---] >> (For instance, my recent thread about how to clip off a a branch via the >> command line when the UI can’t do it because it was created empty, something >> Fossil can’t do, but which apparently CVS or SVN can, so it got into my >> Fossil tree

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Which is why I like my process. Redundancy is good. Not dependent on some algorithm to piece things back together. Disks are so frikkin large now that it is not an issue to have multiple copies of the same file. If one set gets corrupted, just use the one behind it. Fully self contained

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 10/31/15, Matt Welland wrote: > > Regarding git, other than it's arcane interface (i) the you are paying in > learning curve for the additional power that comes from the extra degrees > of freedom it provides. A developer willing to invest the time to deeply >

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Thus said Scott Doctor on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:45:07 -0700: > Which is why I like my process. Redundancy is good. Not dependent on > some algorithm to piece things back together. Disks are so frikkin > large now that it is not an issue to have multiple copies of the same > file. If one set

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Thus said Matt Welland on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:45:33 -0700: > The other benefit git offers is impressive performance. How git can > report extras 2x faster than a Unix find command covering the same > directory tree and 10x faster than fossil is nothing short of amazing. One of the most