On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:49:16PM +0200, pancake wrote: > I have found that scm to be quite interesting (www.fossil-scm.org). > > What do you think about it? I have not started to use it, because I have > all my code in mercurial, > but I would be happy to move to fossil if results to be a decent > alternative. > > The goods I found on it: > > *) written in C > *) zero dependencies > *) all over http > *) single binary > *) simple commands > > The bad: > > *) i think distributed internal webserver, wiki and bugtracker should be > separated
The wiki/bugtracker integration is key to it's design principles. The repository is a complete collection of source files, documentation (wiki) and tickets (bugtracker). This means that as repositories are cloned, the new repository has a very complete view of the project, moreso than if tickets are stored in some third-party application. > *) dont know how it works for large or big projects It depends on what definition of "big" you're using. See: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/tip/www/stats.wiki > I think fossil is far more smart than mercurial (no python), and can be > a good alternative. It > is not suckless, but gets closer to it :) > > any comments? > > --pancake -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://methodlogic.net http://twitter.com/bcharder
