On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Matt Welland <[email protected]> wrote:
> Modest needs of a lone developer not doing branching etc. can be met with > file system based methodology. Even so IMHO an SCM is still a productively > booster once learned. > +1 > s quite doable. For someone who has *already* mastered a SCM the cognitive > burden of tracking code using the tool is much lower > "mastered" ==> "learned the basic commands/functioning of" > I've tried working without an SCM in a few cases and it is a royal pain. > +1 > Add the desire to keep my laptop, two home development machines and my > internet exposed server in sync, the fact that I do parallel development > often to allow exploration, bug fixes to old versions etc. and the > frequency that I resort to things like bisect, it would be a massive hit to > give up fossil. > +1 The initial feature which attracted me to fossil was CGI, which allowed me to trivially sync over my $5/month web/mail hoster. > Regarding git, other than it's arcane interface (i) the you are paying in > learning curve for the additional power that comes from the extra degrees > of freedom it provides. A developer willing to invest the time to deeply > understand git will likely garner some benefits from that additional power. > + a few grey hairs ;) > For most of us mortals the costs outweigh the benefits and the simpler > tool, fossil, is a huge productivity boost for small learning cost. > +1 > The other benefit git offers is impressive performance. How git can report > extras 2x faster than a Unix find command covering the same directory tree > and 10x faster than fossil is nothing short of amazing. For your average > project this is milliseconds vs tenths of a second and no one cares but if > you are working on large development trees with lots of detritus it becomes > tiresome and I've noticed developers avoiding doing a fossil extras. > fwiw, i have never once used 'extras,' neither on small nor large trees. i see no need for it. (ymmv.) > Aside: I'm curious, does fossil stop at directories with no controlled > files in an extras scan? That alone would be a huge optimization and might > explain how git is faster than find. > That's certainly a reasonable hypothesis. > (i) Is fossil that much less arcane? Last I checked mv, cp and rm don't > work the same as Unix, an ongoing annoyance for my users, then there is the > bizarre choice to treat symlinks as files by default - does any other SCM > do that? This bit me *again* recently and I'm still grumpy about it > fwiw, i have always been against the idea of fossil supporting symlinks at all, despite me being a 100% unix user, simply because they aren't portable and they open up philosophical cans of worms like how to hand links leading outside the repo root. i _never_ use symlinks in any SCM. Support for the +x bit (also not portable) was added relatively late, and primarily (only?) to accommodate the convention of having an executable ./configure script. (Not having executable scripts was really annoying.) Happy Halloween, -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
