On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:18:29 -0700
Jeremy Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial?
While you weren't asking me, I converted from mercurial (and did the
hg -> git -> fossil path) to fossil, so feel an answer from me isn't
unreasonable.
> I ask because my friends and I adopted fossil and other friends of ours are
> asking us why we didn't go with mercurial instead. I didn't really have a
> good answer, apart from "fossil seemed smaller (footprint, use-complexity)
> and cooler" =)
I'm an independent consultant, and often work for small companies that
don't have a corporate SCM or issue tracking system, etc. I originally
looked at fossil because I couldn't get a working build of mercurial
on an antiquated solaris system (couldn't seem to get a Python build
to use any of the ssl libraries, which broke hg even if you aren't
using ssl). Getting a working fossil build on that system was easy -
just turn off SSL in the Makefile.
Once I had it up and working, investigating the wiki and issue
tracking system was free, and turned out to be a real win. All for
less work than setting up hg (or git) in the first place. Being able
to have multiple checkouts of the same repository is also a win - I
keep multiple branches checked out, and can merge differences without
a push/pull, and can then push all of it to my clients machine.
I still use hg for projects I release as open source, mostly because
the major hosting sites (I prefer google code) don't support it. To
make up for that, I plan to make adding fossil support to cabal as one
of my next projects.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[email protected]> http://www.mired.org/
Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
