Re: [Tcllib-devel] Regarding SourceForge, the Tcllib CVS, and transitioning somewhere.

[Lars H. <Lar...@re...>]

Andreas Kupries skrev 2011-02-14 22.21:
> *	fossil is small, clean, simple, easy to learn,
[snip]
> *	git, while not small, and with a steep learning curve,

Hmm... I have to say I find those claims somewhat contrary to own experience, 
although I cannot claim that this experience would constitute a comprehensive 
survey of both systems. In particular:

  * IMHO git both seems fairly small and wasn't too hard to learn.
    (Once I got past the slightly scary step that one was supposed to
    use git to download the manpages for git.)

  * Fossil having tickets, wiki, and blog built in doesn't strike me as
    clean (possibly convenient, if you want those features, but not clean),
    and should pose a challenge to being small. But perhaps the comparison
    is with git + 3rd party tools for tickets, wiki, and blog.

  * The web interface to Fossil regularly strikes me as being awkward,
    at least when one encounters it as an outsider (which is not a use-case
    that should be ignored); the requirement to log in as anonymous to
    access certain information is particularly discouraging. It may seem
    more natural for registered users, however.

> *	Richard has its own comparison and reasons for either at
> 	http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki

That does take a rather "databases are where it's at" view of the matter, 
which is not surprising given DRH's area of expertise, but in some cases I 
find myself wondering how deep the analysis is that underlies his evaluation 
of git. In particular the points about immutability and pile-of-files seem 
open to interpretation; git does have immutability, but it is local rather 
than the global immutability fossil appears to set as standard. The "git uses 
pile-of-files, hence it is transactionally unsafe" point in that summary 
/may/ be based on discovering a proper vulnerability in git, but I /fear/ it 
could rather be based on a failure to understand that local immutability 
suffices for the wanted transactional safety. I would appreciate it if DRH 
can lay that fear to rest, however.

> Do I have my own preference ? Yes. And I sincerely hope that I managed to keep
> it out of the arguments above.

Well, if your intent was to not show your own preferrence, then you probably 
failed. :-)

Lars Hellström