> After spending sometime reading the sources and grokking fossil > I don't think it is a walking disaster. Far from it. > > There are a couple of places where things can be improved, > to make *me* happier (YMMV), and I'll try to focus on these > in replying to Andrei's email. Just to get some closure on > this discussion.
it's important to note, though, that fossil is a write buffer and not a proper cache. i believe this fact is the main source of legitimate gripes with fossil. the other source of trouble is that both fossil and venti have at times suffered from being quite unfriendly when shut down unexpectedly. since they run on cpu servers, and since there is a temptation to have an all-in-wonder cpu server, unexpected shutdowns can be more common than one would like. - erik
