On 2/23/17, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > > I think Fossil is in a much better position to do this sort of migration > than, say, Git, due to its semi-centralized nature.
Though they are technically distinct, in the minds of many users Git and GitHub are the same thing. And GitHub is highly centralized. So it is reasonable to argue that Git(Hub) is more centralized than Fossil. And in any event, I don't think centralization is a factor here. Fossil is better positioned than Git or Mercurial to transition to a different hash algorithm because the Fossil implementation uses a relational database as its backing store. Git and Hg, in contrast, both use bespoke pile-of-files database formats which, I suspect, will be more difficult to adapt. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
