Re: GNA is down...

[Ivan Vučica]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:35, David Chisnall <theraven@sucs.org> wrote:

The only disadvantage I've seen of Fossil compared to git or hg is that it doesn't (yet) scale as well.  For a comparatively small project like GNUstep, this is not a significant issue (NetBSD is in the process of switching to Fossil, and they have a lot more developers than us...)

Another disadvantage is people's lack of familiarity with it, and (I presume) smaller number of conversion tools between SCMs than git and hg have.

Just quickly looking at Fossil's homepage, it says that it stores all content in an SQLite database. If it's storing all files and/or diffs in SQLite, does that end up being fast?

It does sound simultaneously interesting and scary with its integration of additional tools, counter to the idea of a tool doing one thing and doing it well. Hence, I wouldn't discount hg.

Only downside I can think of with hg is it being written in Python, although I haven't seen it being significantly slow. And the boon of having many people understanding what it does behind the scenes should not be discounted.

I'm marking Fossil for further study.

-- 
Ivan Vučica - ivan@vucica.net