Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login
to enable hyperlinks.
Overview
Comment: | More tweaks to the fossil-v-git.wiki document. |
---|---|
Downloads: | Tarball | ZIP archive |
Timelines: | family | ancestors | descendants | both | trunk |
Files: | files | file ages | folders |
SHA3-256: |
6ae97be7a7edbca7fce33999195d52e0 |
User & Date: | drh 2018-06-04 14:00:29.518 |
Context
2018-06-04
| ||
14:47 | Update the sync protocol document. ... (check-in: 55cd6153 user: drh tags: trunk) | |
14:00 | More tweaks to the fossil-v-git.wiki document. ... (check-in: 6ae97be7 user: drh tags: trunk) | |
12:40 | Grammar tweak in the Fossil vs. Git document. ... (check-in: ce4fb80e user: wyoung tags: trunk) | |
Changes
Changes to www/fossil-v-git.wiki.
︙ | ︙ | |||
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | might be biased in favor of Fossil. Ask around for second opinions from people who have used <em>both</em> Fossil and Git. ¹<small><i>Git does not support wiki, tickets, or tech-notes, so those elements will not transfer when exporting from Fossil to Git.</i></small> | > | > > < < | | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 | might be biased in favor of Fossil. Ask around for second opinions from people who have used <em>both</em> Fossil and Git. ¹<small><i>Git does not support wiki, tickets, or tech-notes, so those elements will not transfer when exporting from Fossil to Git.</i></small> <h2>2.0 Differences Between Fossil And Git</h2> Differences between Fossil and Git are summarized by the following table, with further description in the text that follows. <blockquote><table border=1 cellpadding=5 align=center> <tr><th width="50%">GIT</th><th width="50%">FOSSIL</th></tr> <tr><td>File versioning only</td> <td>Versioning, Tickets, Wiki, and Technotes</td></tr> <tr><td>Ad-hoc, pile-of-files key/value database</td> <td>Relational SQL database</td></tr> <tr><td>Bazaar-style development</td><td>Cathedral-style development</td></tr> <tr><td>Designed for Linux development</td> <td>Designed for SQLite development</td></tr> <tr><td>Lots of little tools</td><td>Stand-alone executable</td></tr> <tr><td>One check-out per repository</td> <td>Many check-outs per repository</td></tr> <tr><td>Remembers what you should have done</td> <td>Remembers what you actually did</td></tr> <tr><td>GPL</td><td>BSD</td></tr> </table></blockquote> <h3>2.1 Feature Set</h3> Git provides file versioning services only, whereas Fossil adds integrated [./wikitheory.wiki | wiki], [./bugtheory.wiki | ticketing & bug tracking], [./embeddeddoc.wiki | embedded documentation], and [./event.wiki | Technical notes]. These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party and/or |
︙ | ︙ | |||
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 | 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. | | | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 | 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>2.2 Database</h3> The baseline data structures for Fossil and Git are the same (modulo formatting details). Both systems store check-ins as immutable objects referencing their immediate ancestors and named by a cryptographic hash of the check-in content. The difference is that Git stores its objects as individual files |
︙ | ︙ | |||
105 106 107 108 109 110 111 | The ease with which check-ins can be located and queried in Fossil has resulted in a huge variety of reports and status screens ([./webpage-ex.md|examples]) that show project state in ways that help developers maintain enhanced awareness and comprehension and avoid errors. | | | 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 | The ease with which check-ins can be located and queried in Fossil has resulted in a huge variety of reports and status screens ([./webpage-ex.md|examples]) that show project state in ways that help developers maintain enhanced awareness and comprehension and avoid errors. <h3>2.3 Cathedral vs. Bazaar</h3> Fossil and Git promote different development styles. Git promotes a "bazaar" development style in which numerous anonymous developers make small and sometimes haphazard contributions. Fossil promotes a "cathedral" development model in which the project is closely supervised by an highly engaged architect and implemented by a clique of developers. |
︙ | ︙ | |||
135 136 137 138 139 140 141 | Work in progress from one developer is readily visible to all other developers and to the project leader, well before the code is ready to integrate. Fossil places a lot of emphasis on reporting the state of the project, and the changes underway by all developers, so that all developers and especially the project leader can maintain a better mental picture of what is happening, and better situational awareness. | | | | | | | 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 | Work in progress from one developer is readily visible to all other developers and to the project leader, well before the code is ready to integrate. Fossil places a lot of emphasis on reporting the state of the project, and the changes underway by all developers, so that all developers and especially the project leader can maintain a better mental picture of what is happening, and better situational awareness. <h3>2.4 Linux vs. SQLite</h3> Git was specifically designed to support the development of Linux. Fossil was specifically designed to support the development of SQLite. Both SQLite and Linux are important pieces of software. SQLite is found on far more systems than Linux. (Almost every Linux system uses SQLite, but there are many non-Linux systems such as iPhones, PlayStations, and Windows PCs that use SQLite.) On the other hand, for those systems that do use Linux, Linux is a far more important component. Linux uses a bazaar-style development model. There are thousands and thousands of contributors, most of whom do not know each others names. Git is designed for this scenario. SQLite uses cathedral-style development. 95% of the code in SQLite comes from just three programmers, 64% from just the lead developer. And all SQLite developers know each other well and interact daily. Fossil is designed for this development model. <h3>2.5 Lots of little tools vs. Self-contained system</h3> Git consists of many small tools, each doing one small part of the job, which can be recombined (by experts) to perform powerful operations. Git has a lot of complexity and many dependencies and requires an "installer" script or program to get it running. Fossil is a single self-contained stand-alone executable with hardly any dependencies. Fossil can be (and often is) run inside a minimally configured chroot jail. To install Fossil, one merely puts the executable on $PATH. The designer of Git says that the unix philosophy is to have lots of small tools that collaborate to get the job done. The designer of Fossil says that the unix philosophy is "it just works". Both individuals have written their DVCSes to reflect their own view of the "unix philosophy". <h3>2.6 One vs. Many Check-outs per Repository</h3> A "repository" in Git is a pile-of-files in the ".git" subdirectory of a single check-out. The check-out and the repository are inseperable. With Fossil, a "repository" is a single SQLite database file that can be stored anywhere. There can be multiple active check-outs from the same repository, perhaps open on different branches or on different snapshots of the same branch. Long-running tests or builds can be running in one check-out while changes are being committed in another. <h3>2.7 What you should have done vs. What you actually did</h3> Git puts a lot of emphasis on maintaining a "clean" check-in history. Extraneous and experimental branches by individual developers often never make it into the main repository. And branches are often rebased before being pushed, to make it appear as if development had been linear. Git strives to record what the development of a project should have looked like had there been no mistakes. Fossil, in contrast, puts more emphasis on recording exactly what happened, including all of the messy errors, dead-ends, experimental branches, and so forth. One might argue that this makes the history of a Fossil project "messy". But another point of view is that this makes the history "accurate". In actual practice, the superior reporting tools available in Fossil mean that the added "mess" is not a factor. One commentator has mused that Git records history according to the victors, whereas Fossil records history as it actually happened. <h3>2.8 GPL vs. BSD</h3> Git is covered by the GPL license whereas Fossil is covered by a two-clause BSD license. Consider the difference between GPL and BSD licenses: GPL is designed to make writing easier at the expense of making reading harder. BSD is designed to make reading easier at the expense of making writing harder. |
︙ | ︙ | |||
243 244 245 246 247 248 249 | implementations themselves, not to the projects which the systems store. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. | | | | 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 | implementations themselves, not to the projects which the systems store. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. <h2>3.0 Missing Features</h2> Most of the capabilities found in Git are also available in Fossil and the other way around. For example, both systems have local check-outs, remote repositories, push/pull/sync, bisect capabilities, and a "stash". Both systems store project history as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of immutable check-in objects. But there are a few capabilities in one system that are missing from the other. <h3>3.1 Features found in Fossil but missing from Git</h3> * <b>The ability to show descendents of a check-in.</b> Both Git and Fossil can easily find the ancestors of a check-in. But only Fossil shows the descendents. (It is possible to find the descendents of a check-in in Git using the log, but that is sufficiently difficult that nobody ever actually does it.) |
︙ | ︙ | |||
293 294 295 296 297 298 299 | * <b>The [/help?cmd=ui|fossil ui] command</b> Fossil supports an integrated web interface. Some of the same features are available using third-party add-ons for Git, but they do not provide nearly as many features and they are not nearly as convenient to use. | | | 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 | * <b>The [/help?cmd=ui|fossil ui] command</b> Fossil supports an integrated web interface. Some of the same features are available using third-party add-ons for Git, but they do not provide nearly as many features and they are not nearly as convenient to use. <h3>3.2 Features found in Git but missing from Fossil</h3> * <b>Rebase</b> Because of its emphasis on recording history exactly as it happened, rather than as we would have liked it to happen, Fossil deliberately does not provide a "rebase" command. One can rebase manually in Fossil, with sufficient perserverence, but it is not something that can be done with |
︙ | ︙ |