Re: [9fans] Fossil disk usage over 100%?

[Kurt H Maier <khm-9@intma.in>]

On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 10:45:53PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> 
> sorry, what point was he making?  i saw a clearly false claim unsupported
> by evidence or anecdote that fossil is not stable.  but that's not making
> a point.
> 

It's been shown that this mailing list is unwilling to admit that fossil
is unreliable (to the point that it's become a running joke).  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.)

Anyway, the point is that it does not matter and has never mattered what 
'evidence or anecdote' is presented -- not that there's any
non-anecdotal evidence available -- because it's not about the fossil.
It's about sending the message. Fossil is part of the plan 9
inheritance; one of the last gifts of the departing Maiar before they
went West to Tol Eressëa; blessed be its name.

What people seem to forget is that in many folks' eyes, a buggy
data store is a one-way street.  I *know* fossil has had problems,
because I've lost data to it.  Once a bug kills my data, that software
doesn't land on my computer again, full stop.  There is no
'participation award' for software on my computers.  I fix what I can,
but I don't get enough utility from fossil to make it worth
understanding its code.

The point I was making that it's amusing how much effort goes into the
annual "fossil does NOT suck!" parade on this mailing list.  I'd be
interested to know if anyone who has been burned by fossil has been
convinced to give it another try.

khm