On 03/24/11 20:29, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote: > Cute. It seems pretty accurate. IMHO
http://twitter.com/DRMacIver/status/53029890634682369 http://twitter.com/DRMacIver/status/53030039134023680 *whistles innocently* The pros and cons now at: http://versioncontrol.hammerprinciple.com/items/fossil ...look quite fair, though. Pluggability and GUI tools are just a matter of time, I reckon. Suitability for large teams, without costing simplicity for small teams, will require more thought. The first thought that comes to mind on that point for me is git's support for dealing with shipping patches around, which I think Zed posted about an approach to recently (importing patches into your stash?); I'm not sure what would happen when the person who wrote the patches then pulled from your repo after you'd applied them, and tried to merge. "rebase" might end up sneaking into the system via the back route. > S. ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
