Git is a use-case that is excellent for 90% of development. Sqlite is just an example where the use-case isn't necessarily ideal, not an indicator that it's "better" than git.
I’d say that git is fine for 90% of development (or some arbitrarily large number), but so is fossil. I don’t even think that SQLite-in-git would necessarily be a deal-breaker that couldn’t be worked around (drh ‘sqlite can chime in here). The whole space (from personal projects to global collaboration) is diverse enough that there’s no talking about “better” without qualifying the situation, either.
Fossil is good for a large subset of work that can benefit from source control management, regardless of git.
What git definately has is
1) scaleabilty, which is probably of no consequence for 99% of the cases it is employed
I have never once had to use the missing feature that was a dealbreaker for the SQLite guys (find the descendants of an arbitrary commit). I have no idea what they're doing if they super depend on something like that.
bch|8 years ago
I’d say that git is fine for 90% of development (or some arbitrarily large number), but so is fossil. I don’t even think that SQLite-in-git would necessarily be a deal-breaker that couldn’t be worked around (drh ‘sqlite can chime in here). The whole space (from personal projects to global collaboration) is diverse enough that there’s no talking about “better” without qualifying the situation, either.
Fossil is good for a large subset of work that can benefit from source control management, regardless of git.
What git definately has is
1) scaleabilty, which is probably of no consequence for 99% of the cases it is employed
2) network effect, for better AND worse
nebulous1|8 years ago
He already has
> With Git, it is very difficult to find the successors (decendents) of a check-in ... This is a deal-breaker, a show-stopper.
bzbarsky|8 years ago
The network effects are there, though.
pmarreck|8 years ago