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

[Will D. <wi...@wj...>]

Lars,

Provable immutability is one of Fossil's requirements; in the development arena that Richard was (and might still be) targetting, it was required that a file with a given revision UUID could simply not be changed.  You can read more about that at the fossil website.  This is not a requirement for most users.  In short, I don't think Richard is saying that git is substandard in this area, but rather that Fossil provides a stronger form of immutability if you happen to need that.

Will

On Feb 14, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Lars Hellström wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
> _______________________________________________
> Tcllib-devel mailing list
> Tcl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcllib-devel


Will Duquette, OP
will -at- wjduquette dot com  
http://foothills.wjduquette.com/blog