Re: GNA is down...

[Quentin Mathé]

Le 13 févr. 2012 à 13:26, Ivan Vučica a écrit :

> 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.

I quite like Fossil, but I'd be fine with Mercurial too. Both seems to have a 
similar command-line interface:
Fossil: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quickstart.wiki
Mercurial: http://ivy.fr/mercurial/ref/v1.0/Mercurial-QuickStart-v1.0-120dpi.png

As a disclaimer, my experience is limited to Git. I used it for several months, 
although it has some nice features, but its command-line interface is a pain, 
and it's easy to corrupt your local repository history by mistake.

Cheers,
Quentin.