why is merc better than fossil? (please, not a flame starter)

[Adrian Klaver]

On 02/09/2015 11:11 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I've been using merc for a year or so, and like it fine.
>
> Somewhere I read fossil is better for a small repo... so decided to
> experment with it.  Seems good too.
>
> Before asking for guidance let me briefly explain my situation.
>
> single usr host where this is happening
> my HOST (Running Debian (jessie)) is on a smallish home lan
> No commercial projects at all
> No files that are terrribly valuable...
> There are quite a few, though, that I would like to keep track of.
>
> Very small potatoes but, since I run a variety of hosts (many are vms
> I experiment with).  Means I have a fair number of system files and a
> bunch of homeboy script to keep up with.
>
> I'd like to hear a litte about the differences and worth of each from
> some of the `old hands' here.


I looked at Fossil at one time and was intrigued, and still am to tell 
the truth. Main reason I did not go that route was relatively small user 
base. At the time I was using bzr and I could see that it was fading 
from view, so I did not want to go that route again. I think a valuable 
link is on the Fossil site:

Questions And Criticisms
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/qandc.wiki

also

Reviews
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/reviews.wiki


Fossil comes from the sqlite creator and project and follows the same 
philosophy, a single file approach. I like and use sqlite and I have 
never had any really issues as long as stayed inside the lines, single 
user, single file. I have not used Fossil enough though to say where the 
lines are on it. It is the source code repo for sqlite and that project 
sees a lot of activity, so it cannot be too constrained.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver at aklaver.com