On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:09:21 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat? > > On 11/22/17, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <off...@riseup.net> wrote: > > I'm dubious over making Fossil a client for > > any other main DVCS out there. > > One important reason that many people use Git is because so much OSS > is hosted on GitHub and everybody wants to be part of the action. If > developer Alice wants to play in the OSS world, she has to use Git. > But if Fossil were able to clone, push, and pull from Git > repositories, that would enable Alice to use Fossil instead, opening > the door to wider adoption. >
But we give up Fossil semantics. And some of git'd semantics will require extending the Fossil UI. And, if some of the UI ideas suggested would actually change (instead of extending) the behavior of existing Fossil commands. At that point, to my thinking, will be easier to use a proper git client rather than translate git commands to Fossil commands. Also, FWIW, it's been years since I last actually used git to "play in the Github world". The projects I have been contributing to accept patches just as readily as they accept pull requests, so I can just download a zip file, update the "vendor branch" in my Fossil repo for the project, make and test my changes, then make and send a patch. (Yes, many project only accept pull requests. Just been a long time since I've had a reason to contribute beyond a bug report (possibly including a tiny patch).)
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
