Git and Fossil are different tools for different purposes. Git was written for developing the kernel, and if you project fits into the same mold it does very well. The UI issues have gotten better.
At my place of work we've looked at distributed SCMs, but we have *lots* of graphical assets to store (streaming video, texture maps, Photoshop files), which makes replicating repositories a bit impractical, because you're ending up with all 20 versions of that 100M Photoshop file in the replicated repository on every single developer's system. Another issue is regulatory: sometimes you need to know who committed what and when, for auditing purposes. I fully expect that we'll be stuck with a SCM in the vein of Subversion or Perforce, for the above reasons. Gé On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 19:52 -0700, bharder wrote: > http://keithp.com/blog/Repositor_Formats_matter/ > > Would anybody knowledgeable care to comment about fossil in this light? > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
