[HN Gopher] Why I'm using Fossil SCM instead of other source con...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why I'm using Fossil SCM instead of other source control systems
       (2016)
        
       Author : thunderbong
       Score  : 24 points
       Date   : 2022-06-05 20:31 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (andreiclinciu.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (andreiclinciu.net)
        
       | rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
       | This is from 2016...
        
       | cortesoft wrote:
       | I feel like an SCM would have to be WAY better than git to make
       | it worth using. The entire developer community is on git, so you
       | are still going to have to know how to use git in order to access
       | other open source projects. If you are already going to have to
       | be using git for many things, why add a second SCM you have to
       | learn to use?
        
       | schemescape wrote:
       | The author links to a page that describes how the developer
       | password (used in the web interface) is stored in the database in
       | plain text.
       | 
       | Is that still the case? (I sure hope not!)
        
       | JonChesterfield wrote:
       | I wonder what the server feature gives you. I've been using
       | fossil for a decade or so, always over ssh. Definitely don't need
       | to do that setup part.
       | 
       | Fossil doesn't do rewriting history. I think that rules it out
       | for large team efforts. As an immutable distributed log of
       | everything I write by myself it's essentially perfect.
        
         | dmtroyer wrote:
         | What large team workflows require rewriting history? I'm
         | genuinely curious as someone who is always looking for a better
         | team git workflow.
        
           | spiffytech wrote:
           | I hear a lot of larger teams insist on squash commits for
           | PRs. Fossil isn't a fan of squashing.
        
             | cortesoft wrote:
             | Squash commits aren't rewriting history.
        
               | sshine wrote:
               | Squashing literally requires `git rebase`. Perhaps you
               | think of squashing as a GitHub button and not a series of
               | rewriting commands? Technically, any rewrite is
               | equivalent to some arbitrary construction of history from
               | some point in time, but I think a reasonable definition
               | of rewriting history is if you need to rebase or cherry-
               | pick when using the command-line.
        
               | spiffytech wrote:
               | Technically, they are: you used to have N commits, but
               | you erased them. You created a single commit with
               | equivalent contents, but the timeline has been altered,
               | and if you previously pushed to your remote you now have
               | to force push because the remote remembers a version of
               | history that no longer happened. Fossil heavily
               | discourages (outright forbids?) this.
        
               | dmm wrote:
               | It is if someone branches off your pre-squash branch.
        
           | andix wrote:
           | Inside feature branches it can be quite useful. To fix the
           | history, squash things, ...
        
           | peterhunt wrote:
           | Some engineer checks in a customer's personal data as a test
           | fixture and it has to be purged from git history to be
           | compliant with gdpr/ccpa.
        
             | spiffytech wrote:
             | Fossil has a 'purge' command for this purpose, though it's
             | marked as a work-in-progress.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | andix wrote:
       | And what makes Fossil now better as gitea or GitHub for example?
        
         | hasperdi wrote:
         | You'll discover the arguments why Fossil is better if you read
         | the article
        
           | andix wrote:
           | lol, the article talks about how nice it is to have a self
           | hosted GUI for your SCM. There are a lot of those for git
           | too, but they ignore that fact.
        
           | rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
           | That question will make more sense when you see the article
           | is from 2016.
        
         | spfzero wrote:
         | I'm both a Github user and a Fossil user. I use Fossil for all
         | of my own projects, because the common operations have less
         | friction and everything runs very fast locally. I'm including
         | wiki, ticketing, etc. in the "common operations" even though
         | I'm the only user of those things.
         | 
         | I would say if you do all of your development in a corporate or
         | institutional setting where you are a contributor on a
         | distributed team, Github is the best choice and the choice will
         | often already have been made for you anyway. If on the other
         | hand you do a lot of development on your own projects, it could
         | be beneficial to spend a half-day and try out Fossil.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-05 23:00 UTC)