Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Pretty good list. A few comments below on a couple of them (I switched from git to mercurial and then to fossil). On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > (3) Fossil gives you a "timeline" to help track your project. If Mercurial > does this, I've never seen it. Mercurial does have a pretty decent (and customizable) timeline functionality: http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/customizing-the-output-of-mercurial.html I remember writing templates to make the output look like git (ha!), back before I found fossil. The git-style history diff summaries are pretty neat looking. > (6) A single fossil repository can host multiple checkouts at the same time. This is also doable with mercurial (just check out to a new folder), unless I'm confused about what you mean. > (9) Fossil versions branch names so that all contributors have a consistent > view of the project. (Git does not do this. I'm not sure how Hg works in > this regard - perhap a reader can brief me.) Branch names are versioned in mercurial. You assign a name and then commit it. http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/NamedBranches > (12) Fossil has auto-sync mode, which helps to keep all collaborators > working on the same code rather than diverging off into their on forks. This is one of the features that keeps me coming back. Why mercurial and git don't have this option is beyond me. For small especially, but even for fairly large projects, this is the greatest way to keep everyone together without needing excessive merging. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Lack of hooks is a hassle for me too. Wrapper scripts don't meet the need - especially on the server side. Part of the power of hooks is that you don't have to replicate the effort of parsing the command line to know what is being done. An example: I have a regression system running and when commits happen on the release branch of the regression code I'd like the regression run area brought up to date. This is very easy with a hook on commit. Right now I have to run fossil update in a crontab every five minutes. Maybe there is a better way even without hooks? - Original message - > * Jeremy Anderson [20110719 06:18]: > > Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial? > > 1) plain C, single binary > 2) integrated wiki & ticketing > > The big minus for me which still keeps me on mercurial for some stuff is > the lack of hooks for significant events (commit/update, push/pull). > > qvb > -- > pica > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
To be fair, I'm being glib - it probably works fine if properly configured, but configuring CGI plugins on IIS is not a straightforward task. I tinkered with it for an afternoon and only got so far as IIS loading an instance of fossil.exe for each inbound request. Sadly, the .exes would just sit there chewing up 13% of my CPU (each) and never return, causing the browser to timeout. After a dozen requests, the machine would tank because of all the stalled (but active) fossil processes... not pretty, and hard to debug since i couldn't "see" what the fossil.exes were up to. "fossil server" took all of 3 minutes to get running. All I had to do was open up all the right ports in my firewalls and tell NSSM to run it as a service. Done. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Jeremy Anderson wrote: > Unless you're on windows+IIS. Then it takes hours. And maybe then it > doesn't even work... :) > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >>> (2) The "fossil ui" and "fossil serve" commands are easier to use and >>> provide much more information than the "hg serve" command. >>> >> >> Let's not forget: >> >> (2.5) The ability to run Fossil over a CGI. >> >> This has been THE killer feature for me the past several years. i've tried >> several times to get git running over cgi but never succeeded. In Fossil it >> takes all of 3 minutes. >> >> -- >> - stephan beal >> http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ >> >> ___ >> fossil-users mailing list >> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >> >> > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Unless you're on windows+IIS. Then it takes hours. And maybe then it doesn't even work... :) On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> (2) The "fossil ui" and "fossil serve" commands are easier to use and >> provide much more information than the "hg serve" command. >> > > Let's not forget: > > (2.5) The ability to run Fossil over a CGI. > > This has been THE killer feature for me the past several years. i've tried > several times to get git running over cgi but never succeeded. In Fossil it > takes all of 3 minutes. > > -- > - stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Thanks, mike. :) On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:18:29 -0700 > Jeremy Anderson 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 Meyer 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 > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > (2) The "fossil ui" and "fossil serve" commands are easier to use and > provide much more information than the "hg serve" command. > Let's not forget: (2.5) The ability to run Fossil over a CGI. This has been THE killer feature for me the past several years. i've tried several times to get git running over cgi but never succeeded. In Fossil it takes all of 3 minutes. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
On Jul 19, 2011, at 09:38 , Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > I have a big lack of faith for interpreted languages with modules like python. > First, they run unnecessarily slow (some say, that they allow developing > faster, > but I don't agree) and take unnecessarily big amounts of memory. > Second, they usually postpone to the 'run time' many system administration > issues, with far more complexity than shared objects and dynamic linking. You > need matching interpreter versions, modules for those versions, spread at > proper > positions of the hard disk, and even then, your particular settings > (PYTHONPATH,...) can disturb all that too much. You may have other software > that > requires another python version and the same modules spread for that version. Actually for Python this problem is mostly solved by automated tools, you can google it by "virtualenv". Apart from performance, none of this is essentially different than with non-interpreted languages. > I think the interpreted languages have quite an uncomfortable deployment. Then > you go to cross-building, and cross-deployment, and to me it looks like the > time > to cut yoru veins. :) Actually I have pretty much opposite feelings. Proper installation of Perl or Python provides a more uniform base for my applications. Then, Mac OS X and vast majority of Linux distributions come with proper installations. So I'm actually developing on a Mac laptop, and then deploying it to Linux boxes for crunching numbers is just a matter of scp-ing the whole thing. For the small utils I sometimes write, they also always work OOTB. However, I'm not working on complex packaged software. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:35:13AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > (3) Fossil gives you a "timeline" to help track your project. If Mercurial > does this, I've never seen it. Well, there is 'hgk'. http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/HgkExtension Mercurial also comes with a python web script, that gives pictures like this: http://vicerveza.homeunix.net/~mercurial/cgi-bin/hgwebdir.cgi/ts/graph/bb87d5e7c466 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:35:13AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Jeremy Anderson wrote: > > Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial? > Some other possible reasons to prefer Fossil over Mercurial: > ... I agree to all points set by Richard, but apart from the chroot, I found those quite evident. :) ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
* Jeremy Anderson [20110719 06:18]: > Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial? 1) plain C, single binary 2) integrated wiki & ticketing The big minus for me which still keeps me on mercurial for some stuff is the lack of hooks for significant events (commit/update, push/pull). qvb -- pica ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Jeremy Anderson wrote: > Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial? > > 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" =) > Some other possible reasons to prefer Fossil over Mercurial: (1) Fossil supports integrated and distributed trouble-tickets, wiki, embedded documentation, and blog entries in addition to versioning your files. Mercurial is a file-versioning system only. (2) The "fossil ui" and "fossil serve" commands are easier to use and provide much more information than the "hg serve" command. (3) Fossil gives you a "timeline" to help track your project. If Mercurial does this, I've never seen it. (4) Fossil is stand-alone; it does not require python to be installed. Fossil can be run from within a very restrictive chroot jail (which is a nice security feature on servers.) (5) A Fossil repository is a single disk file, not a ".hg" directory containing multiple files. (6) A single fossil repository can host multiple checkouts at the same time. (7) Fossil allows you to amend check-ins with revised timestamps, check-in comments, and/or committers. The original content is preserved and displayed on detailed views, but the revised content is shown on primary displays. (8) Fossil allows check-ins to be moved into new branches after they are committed. (9) Fossil versions branch names so that all contributors have a consistent view of the project. (Git does not do this. I'm not sure how Hg works in this regard - perhap a reader can brief me.) (10) The "fossil all sync" command. (11) Cloning the self-hosting Fossil repo gets you the entire Fossil website, not just the Fossil source code. (One could argue that this is a restatement of point #1.) (12) Fossil has auto-sync mode, which helps to keep all collaborators working on the same code rather than diverging off into their on forks. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 09:18:29PM -0700, Jeremy Anderson wrote: > Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial? > > 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 have a big lack of faith for interpreted languages with modules like python. First, they run unnecessarily slow (some say, that they allow developing faster, but I don't agree) and take unnecessarily big amounts of memory. Second, they usually postpone to the 'run time' many system administration issues, with far more complexity than shared objects and dynamic linking. You need matching interpreter versions, modules for those versions, spread at proper positions of the hard disk, and even then, your particular settings (PYTHONPATH,...) can disturb all that too much. You may have other software that requires another python version and the same modules spread for that version. I think the interpreted languages have quite an uncomfortable deployment. Then you go to cross-building, and cross-deployment, and to me it looks like the time to cut yoru veins. :) These interpreters postpone too much runtime environment issues to the user, instead of leaving them easy to a sysadmin or even the programmer. So, every time I run 'hg', I can only feel that it runs by chance. I have many programs written in mercurial, most started at the time where even git was not in trend, and the only vcs I knew was svn. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:18:29 -0700 Jeremy Anderson 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. 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 fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial? 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" =) -jer On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Martin Gagnon wrote: > Le 2011-07-18 à 09:17, Lluís Batlle i Rossell a écrit > : > > > Hello, > > > > As the lack of friendlyness I've always felt with git, before using > fossil I > > used mercurial. > > > > If I wanted to convert any mercurial repository to fossil, how should do > that? > > Has anyone done that? > > > > Regards, > > Lluís. > > Probably: hg --> git --> fossil > > Sorry, sent previous mail by mistake. > > -- > Martin > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Le 2011-07-18 à 09:17, Lluís Batlle i Rossell a écrit : > Hello, > > As the lack of friendlyness I've always felt with git, before using fossil I > used mercurial. > > If I wanted to convert any mercurial repository to fossil, how should do that? > Has anyone done that? > > Regards, > Lluís. Probably: hg --> git --> fossil Sorry, sent previous mail by mistake. -- Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Le 2011-07-18 à 09:17, Lluís Batlle i Rossell a écrit : > Hello, > > As the lack of friendlyness I've always felt with git, before using fossil I > used mercurial. > > If I wanted to convert any mercurial repository to fossil, how should do that? > Has anyone ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Converting from mercurial
Hello, As the lack of friendlyness I've always felt with git, before using fossil I used mercurial. If I wanted to convert any mercurial repository to fossil, how should do that? Has anyone done that? Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
