On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:20 PM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:12:17 -0600 > From: Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Perception of Fossil > > On Jun 14, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for > "cathedral development" not "bazaar development” > > That’s the official stance, not some rand-o’s opinion: > > https://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki > > > so would be of little interest to anyone > > The conclusion does not follow from the premise, else most software would > never be written, which we can see from the fact that most software is not > written in a bazaar style. > I agree that "designed for cathedral development" should not imply "little interest to anyone". While I dislike "marketing", I know that it is very important. To that end, I think it might be better to drop mention of "bazaar development" and "cathedral development". Also, to focus on describing the features that make Fossil different from git (and, hopefully, better. For example: * Robust SQLite datastore * Branches are "full citizens" (like in Hg), rather than "local bookmarks" * Auto-sync (enabled by default) between a clone and its upstream repository * ... etc.... Basically, make it appealing to "upgrade" to Fossil.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
