Joshua Paine wrote: > > I prefer the way fossil currently works: it hasn't caused me to make a > mistake yet, whereas in SVN more than once I've accidentally checked-in > only part of my work b/c I happened to be too deep in the folder > hierarchy when I typed commit. >
Sometimes the 'feature' of SVN (and CVS) to only commit the subtree comes in handy, and sometimes you shoot yourself in the foot with it. Any SCM somehow provides enough rope to hang yourself. Git is arguably the most 'powerful' of the current crop of DVCS tools, but it includes a lot of extra rope to achieve that, you can remove old branches and rewrite unpublished history without a problem, which is nice when you're exploring new ideas, but it's bad if you make mistakes. Fossil is at the other end of the spectrum, less rope, and a lot less of an opportunity to rewrite history. It's probably a lot safer in untrained hands. Gé _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
