Re: Why I'm working on a NetBSD conversion

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr%thyrsus.com@localhost>]

Jens Rehsack <rehsack%gmail.com@localhost>:
> > The effective demise of bzr simplifies matters. There are now only two
> > even remotely realistic choices going forward: git, and hg.
> 
> What's with fossil? I experienced some minor performance issues because
> of missing local optimizations in fossil - nothing which can't be solved
> when no as much over-busy'ed ...

Fossil is a very elegant (if slightly quirky) design targeted at a use
case totally opposite from NetBSD's.  The Fossil documentation hints
that it was targeted at relatively small projects, especially
single-developer projects.  Its author seems realistic about the
design's scaling issues and prefers shipping a tool well-fitted to
that niche over trying to compete against Git or Mercurial. I am
pretty certain *he* would not recommend it for NetBSD.

(I just got through studying Fossil carefully in order to add full
support for it to reposurgeon, so you couldn't have picked a better
time to ask this question.)

> > Do you think you could sell your gitophobic developers on a system that
> > does not lock them into using git, but allows hg? Obviously the anti-hg
> > people would be immediately satisfied.  Unless you have a large contingency
> > that gets hives from *both* systems, this might be a solution.
> 
> As far as I understood Joerg, that would satisfy fossil people as well.

That would be good news.

> But a very important point in tooling was, that the utility to checkout
> is distributed with the base system. Neither hg nor git can satisfy here.

Could you explain what you mean by "checkout" here?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>