Hacker News Reader

Comment by developuh | Hacker News Reader

Before I started using mercurial and git I tried fossil for a few days. It was really good. I think the only reason my company decided to go with mercurial and git was the lack of a service like bitbucket or github for fossil.

I am really excited to see the new avatar of fossil.

View on HN

That's the beauty of fossil... you hardly need one! Most aspects (wiki, issues) those services offer can be in the local repo, always accessible.

I use GitHub to have a publicly accessible, discoverable, and searchable presence for the repo.

Perhaps we should build something like gnu social (or diaspora, but not as bad) for code projects, or build on existing distributed social networks.

This is somewhat in the works.

There is an issue on GitLab to enable federated pull requests and I believe Gogs/Gitea community is working on getting some sort of standard figured out if I'm not mistaken.

Issue for reference https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4013

Maybe a better option is to convince people like DigitalOcean to provide a prebuilt image.

But I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion here You do need the network effect if you want git gone. GitHub is just easy enough to cross reference bugs in other repositories your project depends on.

There's chiselapp.com, but one of fossil's strengths is you don't need that kind of service. Just drop the fossil binary anywhere convenient and off you go.

There is Chisel but it's just a hosting service for Fossil. You don't get any kind of added value other than not having to host it yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com