On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Jan Danielsson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/03/15 20:55, Richard Hipp wrote: >>> Few organizations have the problem that the full power of Git solves. >> And yet many organizations voluntarily take on the problems that come >> with using Git. Weird. > > One shouldn't underestimate the power of "because everyone else does it". >
I agree. People tend to move to the very next cool thing because it sounds good and modern, or better, more modern that the one they are currently using. And then we assist to group switch over technologies. Personally, I tend to use several technologies comparing them on the field before choosing the right one. In the past I had the opportunity to keep projects under git and others under hg and that allowed me to see what was better for me. I admit this is an opportunity that is not always possible (for instance, if you had to participate in a project hosted on github you are sticked on git). Today I'm using git and fossil for smaller projects (with smaller I mean where I am the only developer). I have to admit that a feature I like very much about git is the rebase: before pushing a patch it allows me for a good review. I totally understand the point of fossil against it, and I think there are cases where git behaviour is better and cases where fossil's one is. I use Emacs+magit and I have to say it allows for a very easy and automated git experience (assuming you are used to Emacs, of course). That is one thing I miss with regard to fossil, even if it is not stricly related to the project itself. Luca _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
