10 votes

Fossil: VCS with integrated wiki, bug tracking, forums, and technotes; by the author of SQLite

3 comments

  1. cadadr Link
    Title is editorialised b/c I don't think "Fossil : Home" is really useful. Submitting this to see if there are any users here or anybody who tested this and what are people's ideas. I think this...

    Title is editorialised b/c I don't think "Fossil : Home" is really useful. Submitting this to see if there are any users here or anybody who tested this and what are people's ideas. I think this is an interesting step towards independence from centralised hosts like Github, Bitbucket and Gitlab, where the data that directly pertains to a project (source code bugs etc., docs and wiki, discussions) lives in host-dependent (except the code itself) and scattered data stores and file formats (this also includes the traditional mailing list + source code repo + bug tracker setup). Currently, I'm using git + org mode for my couple little FOSS projects, which are scattered across Github and Gitlab. But I'd like a more standardised and streamlined tooling which does not depend on my personal setup (i.e. the use of Emacs and my totally personal workflow) or on external software potentially controlled by others.

    5 votes
  2. vord (edited ) Link
    An interesting VCS, but for some reason this part of the FAQ really irked me: This statement is a very weird warp of what the GPL is and does. The GPL is fairly simple: Users of a GPL project have...

    An interesting VCS, but for some reason this part of the FAQ really irked me:

    To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements. In other words, the act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes) implies acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contributed back under the same license. (The details are more complex, but the foregoing captures the essence of the idea.)

    This statement is a very weird warp of what the GPL is and does. The GPL is fairly simple: Users of a GPL project have a right to access the source code of that project. There is no obligation for a downstream developer to "give back enhancements," but there is one clause that is very important: If you re-distribute your enhanced project to other users, those users are also covered by the GPL, and you must distribute the source code of your enhanced project with them (not necessarily to the original GPL project). That is why for example, Google must distribute the source code for the Android kernel, but does NOT have to disclose source code for any kernel modifications they run on their servers, despite both projects being based on the same parent project.

    To sum it up: The GPL is a user-oriented license. The BSD licenses are developer-oriented (IMO a specific type of developer: a profit-oriented one).

    Which, I believe is the ultimate reason why Linux came to dominate the server market as broadly as it has. The BSD license allows for hoarding improvements, which results in a more fractured ecosystem. Both Apple and Sony have leveraged BSD projects to create their own wildly successful OS's, but who knows if even a fraction of the improvements that they made to these systems became part of the wider BSD ecosystem. Due to the GPL, improvements to the Linux ecosystem tended to make their way back upstream more consistently, and the whole ecosystem benefited from it.

    4 votes
  3. jlpoole Link
    I use it and love it. I wish I took advantage of more of it's nifty features, but there is a learning curve and I haven't justified an investment of time or change in work habits to warrant better...

    I use it and love it. I wish I took advantage of more of it's nifty features, but there is a learning curve and I haven't justified an investment of time or change in work habits to warrant better utilizing it. I wish I will in the future. Hurrah for its creators!!

    1 vote