Hacker News Reader

Comment by cytzol | Hacker News Reader

We do, it's called Fossil! http://fossil-scm.org/

Fossil tracks issues (tickets), documentation, and wiki pages at the same level as it tracks code, so when you clone a Fossil repo, everything gets downloaded to your local computer. You can then respond to tickets and perform repo maintenance offline, syncing everything to the server when you're back up.

Edit: A few weeks ago I got a job a one-hour train ride away. I can commit, close tickets, and write docs on my way in, sync everything to the internet when I get to work, then do the same on my way back - even though I don't have a net connection during my commute. It works great. (Ok, not as good as not having to travel at all, but great nonetheless!)

View on HN

the parent commentator was joking that git _is_ decentralised, but that we made it centralised again by relying on a small number of hosters (github, bitbucket and others)

Heh, don't worry, I got the joke. But I also got the joke the last time this was posted, and the time before that, and the time before that...

This just keeps happening. It's not GitHub's fault that they keep getting DDoSed or have a network outage every now and again. But it's not a problem with no solution.

To be honest, I can cope with Github's downtime, it is probably less than if I was hosting a Git solution myself and the service is much more reliable than all the other solutions I've tried (which are either lacking features or have bugs or have massive downtimes).

Github is trying their best as far as I can see, they manage to fix the majority of issues within three hours and even during those three hours its not the end of the world because you can still code.

> Fossil tracks issues (tickets), documentation, and wiki pages at the same level as it tracks code, so when you clone a Fossil repo, everything gets downloaded to your local computer.

Issue tracking and wikis are not a version control problem. Sure, their data can be version controlled. And documentation has been version controlled since Sccs, why would it require special care?

> why would it require special care?

It doesn't, really, but it's in the same place as the code and everything else (this is what I meant as being "on the same level"). You don't need to clone the code and then clone the tickets, for instance. When you run "fossil timeline" on your local machine, you'll see entries for tickets being closed and wiki pages being updated interspersed among the actual code commits. This is useful to me as they're as much a part of the project as the code itself. Does this answer your question?

No, unfortunately. How is this different to and / or better than having a "wiki/" subfolder, and, e.g. an Org-mode file (need not be org-mode, even a plain text file is o.k., and there are wiki systems and todo managers that use plain text) for issues on the project root? I can easily "git/hg/cvs log project.org" to see the history. And the format is not tied to the VCS software, so, if I switch to sth. else, it's still perfectly usable.

An basic example of an org file for tracking issues:

  #+title: Project issue tracker
  #+description: descr...
  #+todo: OPEN(o!) | CLOSED (c@)
  
  This is the issue tracker for Project.  In order to add a
  new issue, add it to the top of the entries as a plain org
  entry, then hit =C-c C-t o= to mark it as open.  In order
  to close an issue, on it's headline, hit =C-c C-t C=,
  this will prompt for a closing comment, see the buffer that
  pops up for instructions.
  
  Common tags: docs, features, bugs, security, ideas
  
  * CLOSED Write README. :docs:bookkeeping:
  - State "CLOSED"     from "OPEN"       [2016-03-22 Tue 02:16] \\
    Written.
  - State "OPEN"       from              [2016-03-18 Fri 22:33]
  * OPEN Implement new features :features:
  - State "OPEN"       from              [2016-01-27 Çrş 23:35]

Ah, I see. In that case, you're right, it's not: if you track issues and docs like like in the same way as you track source files, then functionality-wise they're no different.

The differences that remain are purely in the interface. For example, although they're synced the same way, VCSes tend to display issues differently than source; it's easier to filter out issue changes from the timeline, and harder to accidentally delete other people’s comments. It also makes it possible for people who aren't actual members of your project to raise and comment on the issues, which wouldn't usually be possible (unless your VCS can manage permissions for each file).

One particular use case of yours that Fossil does support is the ability to have a "wiki/" subfolder and have the web interface automatically format and display the pages inside, so you can link to them more easily if you're using the HTTP server for hosting. I think I use this feature more than the built-in wiki because it’s possible to version the docs along with the source, ensuring they never go out of sync.

<3 Fossil. I wish it were more popular so I could use it on non-personal projects and still have a hope of attracting collaborators...

Yeah, fossil is all I use. It's so clean, tiny and self contained with no install or bloat. I've always been in love with software written that way. It makes me look at things like git as just a product of engineers that can get the job done, but don't know what it means to write good software or use imagination.

Being fair, fossil performance on giant scale projects might not compare quite as well against git or proprietary solutions like Perforce, but for the large majority of projects I expect it is more than adequate.

> but don't know what it means to write good software or use imagination.

You can't do patches. You can't rebase. You can't rename files.

Tell me all about this good software and imagination you speak of?

Rename: https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/help/rename - Merge only merges content, but the content does get updated between renamed files. Also note that while rename and mv work similarly, only mv can be used with --hard to also rename the actual file on the drive. If you know of an issue with renaming, you should report it on the bug tracker.

Patches: You can select any 2 commits and create a patch between them ( http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/vpatch?from=cbda43e71bda52f0&to=e... ). If you want to apply the patch, you can just use patch. Whether patch itself should be integrated directly into fossil is I guess something people can argue over. I don't use patches often, but haven't had issues with them.

Rebase: This is what Hipp has to say - http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil...

These things may not be exactly how you prefer them, but you're misinterpreting my point about good software and imagination. Almost no software in existence is perfect for everyone in every scenario, but that doesn't also mean that no software is good.

Fossil leaves me with no reason to use it. What it can do, Git and Mercurial can do better. Saying that no software fits the use case for everyone, everywhere is completely irrelevant. Other software not fitting into every mold completely, while fossil doesn't really bring anything to the table to cover what other solutions don't, doesn't really justify its existence as a solution in any way.

If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil, then I guess fossil isn't what you need, because fossil is different. I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration, though. Use whatever you like, these aren't football teams. :P

>I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration

Please do not devolve the conversation by making outlandish statements that have no bearing on the conversation.

>If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil

That's the exact opposite point I made though. Fossil constrains me in how I work and how I accomplish certain tasks -- with no benefit. Neither Git or Mercurial do that. What Fossil can do, both Git and Mercurial can do better. So why would I choose Fossil?

They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated.

If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool. I get value out of it and am not meaningfully impacted by the issues you have with it in practice.

I'm not a salesman and it's free software, so do what makes sense to you.

>They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated.

As an expert on myself, I must disagree.

>If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool.

I don't use it. But I think you need to remember what I replied to, as that's an ill-placed sentiment in this thread.

> You can't do patches.

You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar.

> You can't rebase.

You have alternatives. The work philosophy is different, though.

> You can't rename files.

False.

>You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar.

Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do.

>The work philosophy is different, though.

That's an apology if I've ever seen one. Again, not the same.

>False.

Rename a file. Then try to merge. Tell me what happens.

>Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do.

Interesting. That's basically what the people who suggested bundles (a Hg feature) said about patches.

I've used both as appropriate. Handy that Fossil has both.

> http://fossil-scm.org/

Off-topic, but I'd reccomend that you install HTTPS Everywhere: https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere - the fact that you are linking the HTTP version means you don't have this very basic extension that really improves your security.

For those wanting to stick with Git, the concept extends to Fedora's Pagure: https://fedoramagazine.org/pagure-diy-git-project-hosting/

Granted, the documentation needs work. But all issues and docs are exposed as git repos.

Is it easy to fix merge conflicts on something like an issue?

Argh, I don’t actually know, and I probably should. I’ll ask on the mailing list and reply with what I find out.

Most developers will not be able to write code without being able to look up stuff on the Internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com