Re: GNA is down...

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 14 Feb 2012, at 06:07, Gregory Casamento wrote:
> 
> Fossil, while it seems good and very comparable to both git and hg is
> not very well known and not widely adopted.   I've learned in my
> career that, while something might be technically better, that's,
> sadly, not always enough.   Still we may want to consider this option
> as well, if it's promising enough it might be worth it.

I'm afraid I agree with this point (and I think Nicolas Roard had a similar 
point to make about going with less popular software).
Just from looking at their documentation etc, fossil does seem the most 
appealing, and more fun ... but GNUstep already seems somewhat marginalised ...

So ... can I put in a wish list ...

1. A properly distributed system ... one where we have a loose cluster of main 
servers which automatically keep in sync, rather than having a single central 
hub (single point of failure).

2. I'd like to see a system which would generate ChangeLog files for us so we 
don't have to write them by hand as well as adding commit comments. 
 
3. I'd like RCS and email feeds of changes from the central systems, so we are 
notified of commits and can review them easily  (e.g. click on a link to see 
the commit log and diffs)

4. I'd like a good web-gui usable both on central systems and on the local 
database

The combination of (1) and (3) is quite tricky ... I don't know how well any of 
the systems actually support it.