Fossil

Diff
Login

Diff

Differences From Artifact [fff39f5d05]:

To Artifact [759d8d2533]:


176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
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 descendants of a check-in. This is
the hybrid data model mentioned above: Fossil manages your check-in and
other data in NoSQL block chain structured data store, but that's backed
by a set of relational lookup tables for quick indexing into that
artifact store.  (See "[./theory1.wiki|Thoughts On The Design Of The
Fossil DVCS]" for more details.)

Leaf check-ins in Git that lack a "ref" become "detached," making them
difficult to locate and subject to garbage collection. This
[http://gitfaq.org/articles/what-is-a-detached-head.html|detached head







|







176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
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 descendants of a check-in. This is
the hybrid data model mentioned above: Fossil manages your check-in and
other data in a NoSQL block chain structured data store, but that's backed
by a set of relational lookup tables for quick indexing into that
artifact store.  (See "[./theory1.wiki|Thoughts On The Design Of The
Fossil DVCS]" for more details.)

Leaf check-ins in Git that lack a "ref" become "detached," making them
difficult to locate and subject to garbage collection. This
[http://gitfaq.org/articles/what-is-a-detached-head.html|detached head
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213

214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233


234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258

259
260
261
262
263
264
265
situational awareness, aid comprehension, and avoid errors.


<h3 id="portable">2.4 Portable</h3>

Fossil is largely written in ISO C, almost purely conforming to the
original 1989 standard. We make very little use of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99|C99], and even less of

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_(C_standard_revision)|C11]. Fossil
does make use of POSIX and Windows APIs where necessary, but it's about
as portable as you can ask given that ISO C doesn't define all of the
facilities Fossil needs to do its thing. (Network sockets, file locking,
etc.) There are certainly well-known platforms Fossil hasn't been ported
to yet, but that's most likely due to lack of interest rather than
inherent difficulties in doing the port. We believe the most stringent
limit on its portability is that it assumes at least a 32-bit CPU and
several megs of flat-addressed memory.⁴ Fossil isn't quite as
[https://www.sqlite.org/custombuild.html|portable as SQLite], but it's
close.

About half of the code in Fossil is actually an embedded copy of the
current version of SQLite. Much of what is Fossil-specific after you set
SQLite itself aside is SQL code calling into SQLite. The number of lines
of SQL code in Fossil isn't large by percentage, but since SQL is such
an expressive, declarative language, it has an outsized contribution to
Fossil's user-visible functionality.

Fossil also makes good use of JavaScript for its web UI, and there's a


fair bit of use of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcl|Tcl] and
[https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/th1.md|TH1] scripting
languages. These do not hamper Fossil's portability, since they are also
all quite portable technologies themselves.

Git is largely portable only to POSIX platforms. About half its code is
POSIX C, and about a third of it is POSIX shell code. There's also
quite a lot of Perl, Tcl, and Python code in Git. Although these
technologies are quite portable within the sphere of POSIX OSes, they're
quite foreign to Windows, which is why the so-called "Git for Windows"
distributions (both [https://git-scm.com/download/win|first-party] and
[https://gitforwindows.org/|third-party]) are actually an
[http://mingw.org/wiki/msys|MSYS POSIX portability environment] bundled
with all of the Git stuff, because it would be too painful to port Git
natively to Windows. Git is a foreign citizen on Windows, speaking to it
only through a translator.

While Fossil does lean toward POSIX norms when given a choice — LF-only
line endings are treated as first-class citizens over CR+LF, for example
— the Windows build of Fossil is truly native.

The third-party extensions to Git tend to follow this same pattern.
[http://mingw.org/wiki/msys|GitLab isn't portable to Windows at all],
for example. For that matter, GitLab isn't even officially supported on
macOS, the BSDs, or uncommon Linuxes!



<h3 id="vs-linux">2.5 Linux vs. SQLite</h3>

Fossil and Git promote different development styles because each one was
specifically designed to support the creator's main software
development project: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds|Linus







|
>

|










|






|
>
>
|
|
|
|

<
|
<
<
|
|













|
>







206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241

242


243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
situational awareness, aid comprehension, and avoid errors.


<h3 id="portable">2.4 Portable</h3>

Fossil is largely written in ISO C, almost purely conforming to the
original 1989 standard. We make very little use of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99|C99], and we do not knowingly make
any use of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_(C_standard_revision)|C11]. Fossil
does call POSIX and Windows APIs where necessary, but it's about
as portable as you can ask given that ISO C doesn't define all of the
facilities Fossil needs to do its thing. (Network sockets, file locking,
etc.) There are certainly well-known platforms Fossil hasn't been ported
to yet, but that's most likely due to lack of interest rather than
inherent difficulties in doing the port. We believe the most stringent
limit on its portability is that it assumes at least a 32-bit CPU and
several megs of flat-addressed memory.⁴ Fossil isn't quite as
[https://www.sqlite.org/custombuild.html|portable as SQLite], but it's
close.

Over half of the C code in Fossil is actually an embedded copy of the
current version of SQLite. Much of what is Fossil-specific after you set
SQLite itself aside is SQL code calling into SQLite. The number of lines
of SQL code in Fossil isn't large by percentage, but since SQL is such
an expressive, declarative language, it has an outsized contribution to
Fossil's user-visible functionality.

Fossil isn't entirely C and SQL code. Its web UI uses JavaScript where
necessary.⁵ The server-side
UI scripting usse a custom minimal
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcl|Tcl] dialect called
[https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/th1.md|TH1], which is
embedeed into Fossil itself. Fossil's build system and test suite are
largely based on Tcl.⁶ All of this is quite portable.


About half of Git's code is POSIX C, and about a third is POSIX shell


code. This is largely why the so-called "Git for Windows" distributions
(both [https://git-scm.com/download/win|first-party] and
[https://gitforwindows.org/|third-party]) are actually an
[http://mingw.org/wiki/msys|MSYS POSIX portability environment] bundled
with all of the Git stuff, because it would be too painful to port Git
natively to Windows. Git is a foreign citizen on Windows, speaking to it
only through a translator.

While Fossil does lean toward POSIX norms when given a choice — LF-only
line endings are treated as first-class citizens over CR+LF, for example
— the Windows build of Fossil is truly native.

The third-party extensions to Git tend to follow this same pattern.
[http://mingw.org/wiki/msys|GitLab isn't portable to Windows at all],
for example. For that matter, GitLab isn't even officially supported on
macOS, the BSDs, or uncommon Linuxes! We have many users who regularly
build and run Fossil on all of these systems.


<h3 id="vs-linux">2.5 Linux vs. SQLite</h3>

Fossil and Git promote different development styles because each one was
specifically designed to support the creator's main software
development project: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds|Linus
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345

    <li><p><b>No easy drive-by contributions:</b> Git
    [https://www.git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull|pull requests] offer
    a low-friction path to accepting
    [https://www.jonobacon.com/2012/07/25/building-strong-community-structural-integrity/|drive-by
    contributions]. Fossil's closest equivalent is its unique
    [/help?cmd=bundle|bundle] feature, which requires higher engagement
    than firing off a PR. This difference comes directly from the
    initial designed purpose for each tool: the SQLite project doesn't
    accept outside contributions from previously-unknown developers, but
    the Linux kernel does.</p></li>

    <li><p><b>No rebasing:</b> When your local repo clone syncs changes
    up to its parent, those changes are sent exactly as they were
    committed locally. [#history|There is no rebasing mechanism in







|







332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346

    <li><p><b>No easy drive-by contributions:</b> Git
    [https://www.git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull|pull requests] offer
    a low-friction path to accepting
    [https://www.jonobacon.com/2012/07/25/building-strong-community-structural-integrity/|drive-by
    contributions]. Fossil's closest equivalent is its unique
    [/help?cmd=bundle|bundle] feature, which requires higher engagement
    than firing off a PR. This difference comes directly from the
    initial designed purpose for each tool: the SQLite project doesn't
    accept outside contributions from previously-unknown developers, but
    the Linux kernel does.</p></li>

    <li><p><b>No rebasing:</b> When your local repo clone syncs changes
    up to its parent, those changes are sent exactly as they were
    committed locally. [#history|There is no rebasing mechanism in
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692

693
694















695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704

    <li><p>That estimate is based on pricing at Digital Ocean in
    mid-2019: Fossil will run just fine on the smallest instance they
    offer, at US $5/month, but the closest match to GitLab's minimum
    requirements among Digital Ocean's offerings currently costs
    $40/month.

    <li><p>We have yet to hear from someone who has ported Fossil to

    [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z/OS|z/OS], for example, though it
    should be quite possible.
















    <li><p>Both Fossil and Git support
    [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(Unix)|<tt>patch(1)</tt>
    files], a common way to allow drive-by contributions, but it's a
    lossy contribution path for both systems. Unlike Git PRs and Fossil
    bundles, patch files collapse multiple checkins together, they don't
    include check-in comments, and they cannot encode changes made above
    the individual file content layer: you lose branching decisions,
    tag changes, file renames, and more when using patch files.</p></li>
</ol></i></small>







|
>
|
|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>










686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721

    <li><p>That estimate is based on pricing at Digital Ocean in
    mid-2019: Fossil will run just fine on the smallest instance they
    offer, at US $5/month, but the closest match to GitLab's minimum
    requirements among Digital Ocean's offerings currently costs
    $40/month.

    <li><p>This means you can give up waiting for Fossil to be ported to
    the PDP-11, but we remain hopeful that someone may eventually port
    it to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z/OS|z/OS].

    <li><p>We try to keep use of Javascript to a minimum in the web UI,
    and we always try to provide sensible fallbacks for those that run
    their browsers with Javascript disabled. Some features of the web UI
    simply won't run without Javascript, but the UI behavior does
    degrade gracefully.

    <li><p>"Why is there all this Tcl in and around Fossil?" you may
    ask. It is because D. Richard Hipp is a long-time Tcl user and
    contributor. SQLite started out as an embedded database for Tcl
    specifically. ([https://sqlite.org/tclsqlite.html | [Reference]])
    When he then created Fossil to manage the development of SQLite, it
    was natural for him to use Tcl-based tools for its scripting, build
    system, test system, etc. It came full circle in 2011 when
    [https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fwrx5/tcl_and_tk_move_away_from_cvs_to_fossil/
    | the Tcl and Tk projects moved from CVS to Fossil].

    <li><p>Both Fossil and Git support
    [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(Unix)|<tt>patch(1)</tt>
    files], a common way to allow drive-by contributions, but it's a
    lossy contribution path for both systems. Unlike Git PRs and Fossil
    bundles, patch files collapse multiple checkins together, they don't
    include check-in comments, and they cannot encode changes made above
    the individual file content layer: you lose branching decisions,
    tag changes, file renames, and more when using patch files.</p></li>
</ol></i></small>