> What's not so easy to replace is the Git integration in my editor (Visual Studio Code)
Same here, but I use JetBrains products. I put a bug in the ear of JetBrains. At least its something. Have a good one, all On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:27 AM, J. King <jk...@jkingweb.ca> wrote: > I use Git, but I'm not attached to it. I run my own publicly-accessible > remote (using Gitea), but that would be completely replaceable with Fossil > (which I am very impressed by). > > What's not so easy to replace is the Git integration in my editor (Visual > Studio Code) which allows me to easily perform basic operation like commit, > push, pull, and rebase. > > Even just to the ability to review diffs and perform checkins in my editor > would be enough, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon, if ever, and I > don't have the expertise required to hack it on myself. > > Until the landscape changes (or someone can suggest suitable Windows > software), I will continue to admire Fossil from afar. > > On December 26, 2017 10:08:08 AM EST, Damien Sykes < > dam...@dcpendleton.plus.com> wrote: > >Hi, > >This is a question I have asked myself many times (I.E. Git projects > >moving > >to Fossil). > >GitHub is well known and boasts over 74 million repositories, yet > >Fossil, > >which both hosts and utilises one of the most well-known database > >systems in > >the world, I doubt can count a thousand. Even the ChiselApp hosting > >platform > >hosts a mere 360 public repositories, Hydra hosts 11, WanderingHorse > >hosts > >23, outside of which lie Fossil itself, the Fossil book, SQLite and > >friends > >(5 publicly accessible repositories in all), and TCL and friends (7 > >repositories), making a total of 408. Add SQLite private repositories, > >and > >private repositories that I host, have access to or otherwise generally > >know > >exist, and I come up with an estimate of roughly 470 repositories. Of > >course > >this is not an accurate statistic since it may exclude more private > >repositories, and definitely excludes any local repositories (I for one > >have > >about a dozen Git repositories as Fossil repositories). > >While I am making every attempt to try to persuade friends towards > >Fossil, > >they are also choosing Git. Looks to me like the only people who seem > >to use > >Fossil are those who are most associated with it, which is a real > >shame. > >The only advantage I can see with GitHub is that it's the source code > >Twitter equivalent. Everybody's repository is in one place. As long as > >you > >know the username and repository name you know the full repository URL, > >and > >you don't have to worry about server administration. With Fossil, if I > >wanted to make it feel like github, I.E. address.tld/user/repo, I would > >have > >to script it and serve it via a webserver rather than Fossil's own > >server, > >two processes which I am not at all skilled enough, at least at the > >moment, > >to undertake. To give you an example, I am currently having to run two > >systems, one for my website and one for Fossil, so that they can both > >work > >on port 80, because I know nothing about networking in order to > >understand > >IP addresses, ports and connections in the way I'd need to get a server > >and > >Fossil to run on port 80 on the same machine, nor do I know enough > >about > >webservers to be able to get it to work with CGI. In fact I know so > >little > >that I follow installation guides to the letter and have to do a > >complete > >fresh server reset and reinstall from scratch when something goes wrong > > > >because I haven't a clue how to fix it. If I'm to be totally honest at > >the > >moment I'm even beginning to doubt my own software development skills. > >If there were a Fossil-based github-like system, and both Fossil and > >the > >hosting system were well promoted, Fossil may or may not become the > >norm. > >Having said that, the advantage of Fossil over Git is that, thanks to > >the > >webserver, you can easily look at your changes in a laid-out website, > >even > >on your own machine. I've many a time found myself importing Git > >repositories into Fossil just to look at the timeline. Plus, you don't > >have > >to worry about complicated concepts like pull requests, synchronising > >forks > >and submodules etc. Though it doesn't matter what VCS I use I always > >seem to > >come across, and struggle with, the concept of branching and merging! > >In any case, my incompetencies aside. People seem to be slowly moving > >away > >from SourceForge in favour of GitHub. If only we could make the same > >revolution with Fossil! Ironically when I first came across a site > >called > >FossHub I actually thought that was an attempt to make a Fossil-based > >GitHub. Seems that isn't the case after all. > >Cheers. > >Damien. > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Richard Hipp > >Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 1:10 PM > >To: SQLite mailing list > >Cc: shekharreddy.k...@gmail.com > >Subject: Re: [sqlite] Move to Github!!? > > > >On 12/25/17, Shekhar Reddy <shekharreddy.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Is there any particular reason that the source is not moved to > >GitHub? I > >> think that would reach more number of people there. > >> > > > >There is a mirror of the SQLite repository on GitHub at > >https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite (maintained by GitHub user "mackyle" > >whom I do not know, but whose efforts I do appreciate). > > > >SQLite uses a different version control system called Fossil. See > >https://www.fossil-scm.org/ for more information about Fossil. Fossil > >is superior to Git+GitHub in many respects. You can easily see this > >by doing a side-by-side comparison of the SQLite Fossil repository > >against the GitHub mirror. > > > >For example, here is the GitHub view of the "dbpage" branch of SQLite: > > > > https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite/commits/dbpage > > > >Compare the above against the equivalent Fossil view: > > > > https://www.sqlite.org/src/timeline?p=dfdebd12bfc80b91 > > > >The Fossil view clearly shows that the head of "dbpage" is the merger > >of two other branches, and Fossil shows clearly where the branch > >diverged from trunk. That information is very difficult to discern > >from the GitHub view. > > > >Fossil also has the ability to show the complete context of an > >individual branch. For the "dbpage" branch, the context is shown > >here: > > > > https://www.sqlite.org/src/timeline?r=dbpage > > > >Note in particular that Fossil clearly shows that the "dbpage" branch > >was ultimately merged back into trunk. GitHub does not provide that > >information, as far as I can tell. > > > >The basic problem with Git (apart from its notoriously convoluted user > >interface) is that it is based on a (bespoke) key/value database - the > >"packfile". Fossil, on the other hand, is based on the most widely > >used relational database in the world. This make information much > >easier to extract from Fossil than from Git. For example, given a > >commit in Git (perhaps one reported by a customer or one found via > >bisect) there is no easy way in Git to find out what comes next - what > >commits were entered using your commit as a baseline. Git shows > >ancestors, but not descendants. Fossil, on the other hand, easily > >shows both descendants and ancestors of a check-in. You see this in > >the "Context" section of any Fossil commit page, such as > >https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/dfdebd12bfc80b91 > > > >The fact that Git/GitHub does not show the descendants of a commit is > >a show-stopper for me. > > > >Finally, the use of GitHub would create a reliance on an outside > >company over which we have no influence. The people who run GitHub > >today seem like great folks. But the company might be sold or fall > >under new management tomorrow, and the friendly and open policies that > >govern GitHub today might change in an instant. Fossil, on the other > >hand, is very simple to self-host on a $5/month VPS. (SQLite uses > >https://www.linode.com/ for its main servers and > >https://www.digitalocean.com for the https://www3.sqlite.org/ backup. > >There are lots of others.) > > > >So, given that Fossil is freer than Git (BSD vs. GPL), that Fossil > >embodies all of the functionality of both Git and GitHub, that Fossil > >is more capable than Git/GitHub, that Fossil has a friendly user > >interface than Git, and that Fossil is very easy to self-host and thus > >frees you of any dependencies on third-party companies, the question > >becomes: > > > >Why aren't you moving all of your GitHub projects over to Fossil! > > > >-- > >D. Richard Hipp > >d...@sqlite.org > >_______________________________________________ > >sqlite-users mailing list > >sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > >http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > >_______________________________________________ > >sqlite-users mailing list > >sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > >http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
