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

[lucio@proxima.alt.za]

> 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.

I'd swap fossil for any number of Unix-ey file systems, despite
recently having pushed fossil over the edge and driven it where only
flfmt with the right venti score would recover it.  But a single command
sufficed to get me back where I wanted to be.

Every time I lost a NetBSD, Windows, Linux or Netware filesystem it's
always been easier to throw the damaged filesystem away than to figure
out how to recover.  That's happened more times than I've lost fossil.

I accept that fossil is WIP with no one actually working on it, but
the incomplete product is already better than any finished equivalent
I am familiar with, specially those where somebody comes along twice a
year to point out how it can all be improved by starting from scratch.

++L

PS: It's as much effort to point out one's success stories as it takes
to mention one known failure.  The question one gets tempted to ask is
why one failure should dominate the discussion.