What about git needs replacement?
Open Source
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
Something new is new, and apparently that's all tha-- SQUIRREL!
Seems like a historic artefact to me as well. And one of their mentioned points was "no sync via http" which even for 2006 makes me... hesitant.
And their history section ends in 2007, couldn't find a feature comparison in their quick start guide.
Fossil is more like a Jira replacement, and its built by one person with a severe case of NIH. Not necessarily a bad thing but I lived through it with Ubuntu, not really a fan of this philosophy.
I've worked with NIH VCS. Never again lol, I'll stick to git until something else becomes so universally recognized that people en masse start jumping ship.
"NIH"?
I think "Not Invented Here". Meaning he wants to build everything himself from scratch despite there being alternatives he can use instead.
E.g.: Building your own httprequest library rather than using the existing one which is good enough.
Not Invented Here, the urge to rebuild the wheel because someone else did it.
Darcs does not require a central server, and works perfectly in offline mode.
Git can be used that way too. Am I missing something?
No, you are not. People regularly equate Git and GitHub, though.
Darcs came out in 2003—Git in 2005. It was novel at the time compared to the alternatives. Darcs started as alternative to CSV & Subversion, not Git. Unlike Git it works on patches, not snapshots which has advantanges in merge conflicts.
- open-source
- Ticketing
- Cathedral-style coding isn't very Open-Source, if you believe the man who wrote the book and coined the term.
- it's okay to post your own words instead of drunkenly jamming HTML into Markdown.
Spent 5 minutes on the website and couldn't get a peek at their code... The most fundamental thing, IMO.
fossil is made by the sqlite devs, for development of sqlite. this is not some amateur operation.
also, it's by the sqlite people, so expect the code to be... odd.
it's not the most intuitive interface but there you go: https://fossil-scm.org/home/tree?name=src
Wow C, CSS and JS files at the same level. You don't see this every day
This thread might be the fastest I've ever seen discussion devolve from "that could be interesting" to just incomprehensible screaming.
This seems really cool!! And I love to see alternatives to git. But @MITM0@lemmy.world, you need to cool it on the replies. You're making the Fossil community look hostile by association.
I really like the idea of using a relation db to track change history. It removes so much weirdness and quirkiness that git has. You just have regular SQL queries you can use to go through history and ask questions about the state of the repo. I also like that it's immutable so you don't have to worry about things like rebasing and other ways you can fuck up history in git. The problems solved by mucking with history largely go away when you can query the db with a rich syntax.
Tho we also got mercurial right?