On Jul 26, 2011, at 09:07 , Mike Meyer wrote: >> And [Fossil] is reported to destroy repositories if someone branches: >> http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1306005291.html >> >> Any comments? > > Already discussed at length on the list > (http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg04665.html). > > IIRC, there was a subtle bug that caused a "fossil update" to update > to an empty branch - which then removed most of his files (bug fixed > during this discussion). At this point, none of his work was > lost. However, he then panicked (not unreasonable) and in trying to > get things fixed managed to do things that did lose work. I don't > think enough information was ever posted to decide if fossil actually > lost work, or if he just managed to destroy it while trying to recover > from the checkout of nothing.
IIRC he lost his changes by issuing fossil revert, what was the expected result. About general reliability: I've never encountered any data loss/corruption with Fossil. This is even when I use my own compiled versions derived from the trunk at random moments. It's also quite rare to read about any bugs in the software. I'd say it's built to a pretty good quality, but not yet the one of sqlite. Also the process is a bit lacking, with the ticket system being a ghost town (see http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/rptview?rn=2). But then again, it just works :) Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
