From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0d7ccb96de71a0367a947211e539c8db@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
Date: Mon,  3 Jun 2013 13:18:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20130603114926.GA19716@intma.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fossil disk usage over 100%?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6191c5b6-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I see that
> in this thread we've made progress:  someone has admitted that fossil
> _used_to_be_ unreliable.  (I expect even this assault on the sanctity of
> fossil will now be repelled.)

I think not.  The archive bug was well known, and you'll find several
conversations about it over the years in the mailing list history, up
to the point where I finally nailed it last year.  I think it wasn't
a priority for many people to look at because it only damaged copies
of files on their way onto /n/dump; as rsc once remarked, once a file
is safely on venti you can rely on it staying there.

> but I don't get enough utility from fossil to make it worth
> understanding its code.

Fine, if it's not useful to you don't use it.  Speaking only for myself,
I'd be very unhappy to have to switch to any other file system lacking
fossil's frequent and effortless ephemeral snapshots.  Apart from using
them as a simple source-mananagement mechanism for keeping track of
progress on current projects, I find them an invaluable insurance against
fumble-fingered incidents of the 'mv y x' variety.