I tried talking to them about the notion of breaking the monopoly of GIT & was talking about Fossil They literally went don't care "Git is good enough" they're literally talentless monkeys

[–] logging_strict@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There is efforts to make the issues and PRs forkable as well. There is some folks jumping ship. Haven't researched the new platforms like codeberg

Codeberg is based in Germany hmmm

gitea docs

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I wasn't talking about Github, I was talking about GIT itself; Look at these Three:

The last 2 are Patch-Based & 2 is basically a modernized-version of 3, eventhough 3 is still being maintained to this day & 1 is a fully-fledged Github-in-a-box

Oh boy I can't wait for the negative comments about it's obviois flaws, so let's hear it

[–] logging_strict@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Have read thru the Fossil web site. Fossil and git are nothing alike. Fossil is not Github in a box. That's misleading.

It's ok to place the key/value pairs merkle tree into an sqllite database AND NOT change the philosophy away from what we are used to with git.

Fossil makes me more sold on git. I want the PRs, i want to be able to rebase. I want to be able to fork projects away from it's parent.

Fossil needs to rewrite if it wants to attract git users. My main thing is portability of PRs and Issues. So when fork a project, the PRs and Issues are also forked. When the original author disappears would be nice to not have to rename the repo, while losing the PRs and Issues.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

But it doesn't appeal to GIT users, Git favours a Bazaar style development