On 3/13/15, bch <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am sure that Git has massive advantages for some people, particularly >> for large projects with huge numbers of collaborators.
As Stephan Beal has previously pointed out, Git is *designed* to forget things. This is a feature of Git, not a bug. Linus does not want to see every edit made by every Linux contributor. Git is designed so that extraneous branches can be filtered from the permanent record, retaining only the main line of development. Git features "rebase" to help with this filtering task. In a project with as many contributors of varying skill levels as Linux, you really have to do it that way, otherwise the complexity becomes disabling. Fossil, in contrast, is designed to remember everything. Fossil was specifically designed to support the DO-178B inspired development process used by SQLite, with few developers and a complete and immutable audit trail for all inputs. So Git and Fossil are somewhat at cross-purposes. Fossil is inappropriate for use on Linux and Git is inappropriate for use on SQLite. (Please note that while Linux is a larger project with more developers and more prestige, there are in fact more instances of SQLite running in the wild than there are of Linux.) So, yes, nobody is suggesting that projects like Linux should use Fossil. But on the other hand, not many projects have as big a developer base as does Linux. I content that Fossil is a better choice for the vast majority of FOSS projects. Fossil is easier to use. (Even Git advocates admit as much!) Fossil does not forget. With Fossil it is impossible to get into detached head state. -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
