On 3/15/17, Roy Marples <r...@marples.name> wrote: > > I've stopped using Fossil for my open source projects only. > I still use it - and intend to keep using it - in a few private > projects. So I still have a vested interest in it. > > I still think Fossil is a good tool, technically superior in many > places, but I just gave up trying to make the design of it more socially > adaptable to the current open source world. >
I will argue that you are conflating "Bazaar-style Development" with "Open Source". Though correlated, these are not the same thing. SQLite is a prominent example of an open source project that uses cathedral-style development instead of bazaar-style development. It is a common error to confuse "bazaar-style development" with "open source". Perhaps this confusion arises because "bazaar-style development" does implies "open source". It is the converse that is false. "Open source" does *not* imply 'bazaar-style development". I want to encourage you to revise your blog post to make this distinction clear. I will argue that Fossil is still the best choice for any cathedral-style open-source project. If you want to say that GitHub (or Mercurial or something else) works better for bazaar-style projects, that it fine. But I think it is incorrect to say that those others are better for *all* open-source projects. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
