Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login
to enable hyperlinks.
Overview
Comment: | Minor corrections in grammar to Fossil vs Git rewrite. |
---|---|
Downloads: | Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive |
Timelines: | family | ancestors | descendants | both | trunk |
Files: | files | file ages | folders |
SHA1: |
0b90da304fe78337c5b27a289cfac0e1 |
User & Date: | andybradford 2015-12-17 03:29:29 |
Context
2015-12-17
| ||
15:58 | Clean rebuild of SQLite (so the source_id of fts5 matches the one from SQLite itself) ... (check-in: 5b30c544 user: jan.nijtmans tags: trunk) | |
03:29 | Minor corrections in grammar to Fossil vs Git rewrite. ... (check-in: 0b90da30 user: andybradford tags: trunk) | |
02:02 | Remove stale code accidently left in an earlier commit. ... (check-in: 61c8d418 user: drh tags: trunk) | |
Changes
Changes to www/fossil-v-git.wiki.
︙ | ︙ | |||
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 | If you clone Fossil's self-hosting repository, you get the entire Fossil website - source code, documentation, ticket history, and so forth. For developers who choose to self-host projects (rather than using a 3rd-party service such as GitHub) Fossil is much easier to set up, since the stand-alone Fossil executable together with a 2-line CGI script suffice to instantiate a full-featured developer website. To accomplish | | | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 | If you clone Fossil's self-hosting repository, you get the entire Fossil website - source code, documentation, ticket history, and so forth. For developers who choose to self-host projects (rather than using a 3rd-party service such as GitHub) Fossil is much easier to set up, since the stand-alone Fossil executable together with a 2-line CGI script suffice to instantiate a full-featured developer website. To accomplish the same using Git requires locating, installing, configuring, integrating, and managing a wide assortment of separate tools. Standing up a developer website using Fossil can be done in minutes, whereas doing the same using Git requires hours or days. <h3>3.2 Database</h3> The baseline data structures for Fossil and Git are the same (modulo |
︙ | ︙ | |||
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 | check-in. It is so difficult, in fact, that neither native Git nor GitHub provide this capability. With Git, if you are looking at some historical check-in then you cannot ask "what came next" or "what are the children of this check-in". Fossil, on the other hand, parses essential information about check-ins (parents, children, committers, comments, files changed, etc.) | | | 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 | check-in. It is so difficult, in fact, that neither native Git nor GitHub provide this capability. With Git, if you are looking at some historical check-in then you cannot ask "what came next" or "what are the children of this check-in". Fossil, on the other hand, parses essential information about check-ins (parents, children, committers, comments, files changed, etc.) into a relational database that can be easily queried using concise SQL statements to find both ancestors and descendents of a check-in. Leaf check-ins in Git that lack a "ref" become "detached", making them difficult to locate and subject to garbage collection. This "detached head" problem has caused untold grief for countless Git users. With Fossil, all check-ins are easily located using |
︙ | ︙ |