Fossil VS Pijul

Feedback to author: The diagram and explanation took a beat longer than normal to scan, since this buries a bit that it's not about the beautiful source control system called fossil shipped as a composition of modules: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki Great diagrams, so of course that's the first thing a reader will skim. People biuld things based on git all the time, the diagram looks like... - Source: Hacker News / 3 months ago

There are (all too rare) tools that back those objects with git as well. And there's always fossil ... https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki But it's not git. :-(. - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago

I don't think git should be the infrastructure of collaboration. It's good for long-lived artifacts, but isn't good for discussion, for rights management, ... Fossil (https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki) is of course better, but if git must remain, I believe the base infrastructure should be the mailing list. Patches, branches and releases can live inside a mailing list, it is naturally built for... - Source: Hacker News / 7 months ago

Have you spent much time using Fossil? https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki. - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago

> To make things more complicated, they also use their a relatively niche version management system instead of git. Which would complicate making contributions (if they accepted them). The Fossil VCS actually has a page explaining why it was created, instead of just using Git: https://sqlite.org/whynotgit.html Honestly, a lot of those points make sense, especially how Git is perhaps a little bit more complex and... - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago

In Pijul, conflicts are not modelled as a "failure to merge", but rather as the standard case. Specifically, conflicts happen between two changes, and are solved by one change. The resolution change solves the conflict between the same two changes, no matter if other changes have been made concurrently. Once solved, conflicts never come back. - from https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / about 2 months ago

Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon. Then you will see it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself -- what Pijul users say when they overhear git users arguing with each other about monorepos. https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / 2 months ago

I believe that handling merges like this correctly was a motive for designing pijul: https://pijul.org See the item on the splash page about 'merge correctness'. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the post detailing the behavior with a bit of searching. - Source: Hacker News / 3 months ago

Darcs [0] patch theory was a predecessor to OTs/CRDTs (and a predecessor to git as well; in some ways it is the "smart" to which git was named "dumb"). When it works and performs well it is still sometimes version control magic. Pijul [1] is an interesting experiment to watch, trying to keep the patch theory flag flying and also trying to bring in updates from OTs and CRDTs as it can. [0] https://darcs.net [1]... - Source: Hacker News / 3 months ago

IMHO the only really interesting alternative to Git currently is Pijul (https://pijul.org) as it is not a more-or-less Git clone but a different approach to the problem itself. Pijul allows for very interesting development and ci/cd workflows. - Source: Hacker News / 3 months ago