Estimated reading time: 1 minutes
For a variety of reasons we can no longer use GitHub at work for any project which isn’t Open Source. And since that decision was thrust upon us we’ve been playing with some alternatives for our workflow. We’ll probably end up choosing one of the self hosted clones at some point, but it was decided early on that we should evaluate a variety of options.
I was tasked with testing out fossil on a couple of small side projects, and these are my absolutely biased personal findings.
Before I start I should add that while what I’m about to write probably sounds harsh, I do like fossil the concept. I like the single sqlite project repository, I like the small-enough-to-grok-in-an-afternoon code base and I like the idea of a totally reproducible project state including all metadata.
The good news is that testing fossil is a piece of cake. It supports both reading and writing git‘s fast-import format. If you want to test it out just dump an existing git repository(or mercurial with an extension), and feed it fossil import. If you later change your mind you can run fossil export.
Sadly supporting incremental two-way mirroring didn’t work out for us, but perhaps it will for simpler projects. In the end I simply mirrored the git repositories to fossil, marked the git repositories as read-only and forced contributors to work with fossil from the outset.
The fossil project sells itself on being a single file binary install, and that probably works well for a subset of users. We’re not that in that subset though, and fossil is more than a little annoying to wrangle in to our environment.
The tarball ships without any directly usable documentation, so you end up with either no system documentation or a collection of docs sprinkled with wiki markup in /usr/share/doc.
By default fossil builds in a manner which breaks most packaging standard unfortunately. If you’re building packages you’ll likely need to write an awful lot of custom workarounds to get a compliant and usable package, see lst-pkgs/utils/dev/fossil build for the gory details of our hacks.
I don’t really want to hold this against fossil, but it is important to note that for all intents and purposes no one is familiar with it. No upstream projects we actively track use it, there isn’t a single person who chooses to use it on our site(which is why I had to handle the packaging) and expecting new hires to have even heard of it is probably a stretch.
It wouldn’t be such an issue if the choice was a git vs mercurial one, where the few differences are mostly cosmetic. fossil is a completely different beast, and requires an enormous rethink in the way you handle version control.
Ten years ago when people were on the whole still familiar with the CVS and Subversion way of working that wouldn’t have been such an issue, but times have most definitely changed.
The vocabulary in the documentation is likely to be foreign to users of any version control system, and the workflow examples in the documentation are entirely foreign to how we have developed any project in at least the past decade.
One of the proclaimed benefits of using fossil is that it handles many aspects of a project’s ALM; version control, issue tracking, documentation(via a wiki), etc. However, and this is only my opinion, it feels like it does of all of these in a suboptimal manner.
The version control feels quite nice for the most part, definitely usable but a little annoying to work with if you’re used to a modern DVCS like we are.
That said it does feel like a huge step backwards when working with branches, and you should set aside quite a lot of time for integration issues when you have autosync disabled. And I can’t imagine a scenario where autosync could work for us, without rewriting our entire way of working or returning to CVS-style mega commits and a manual patch stack layered on top.
If you read fossil‘s Branching, Forking, Merging, and Tagging documentation it appears that this is a design feature for the creators.
The issue tracker feels like someone has tried to improve on Bugzilla, without taking a look at modern trackers. It is definitely the weakest part of fossil in my opinion, using it is both a mental and eye-stabbing pain at the same time.
Luckily you can rework a lot of it by fiddling around with the administration settings exposed by fossil ui.
This also exposes one of the best features of fossil, you can create a custom SQL script that configures the project(issue tracking, pretty theme, etc) and just blast it in to the project’s database. Or you can create a custom file that makes all your edits and pump it in with fossil config import.
The wiki system is actually really good for what it does, but it has very few of the features we use for our documentation. I don’t want to hold that against it though, as it just a impedance mismatch.
The end result of the integrated components feels to me like you’ve chosen a usable, but weak, component for some of the most important parts of your project’s ALM. The bits work well together, but none of them seem like an option you’d choose on their own.
The help output for new users is, in my opinion, really irritating. The default command message tells you to run fossil help or fossil help COMMAND, without providing the names of any of the common commands. The fossil help output emulates a tsort filter of the command names, listing commands with unique to fossil terminology and no short descriptions. fossil help --all feels like it should be more useful, but just creates a larger table of commands with uncommon names and still no descriptions.
It makes very little sense to organise the help in this manner because as you get used to the naming and non-standard option style you will need the help less. I’ve patched this for our packages, and if people like it I’ll try to push it upstream.
It turns out I won’t be pushing the changes upstream. They require a CLA that I can not sign in good faith, which is a shame.
The option handling will trip you up endlessly. Just the little things like being unable to chain options, and needing an endless stream of C-p M-5 M-b <space> to add a space before a commit message for example. Yes, I know some people don’t like standard getopt or GNU-style option parsing, but every other tool you use has chosen it.
Some of the interface decisions are actively bad, for example there appears to be no way to delegate password configuration to a trusted system service or even netrc. Specifying passwords in URLs on the command line is a huge anti-pattern, and I just hope you don’t have any multiseat systems if you’re using that method.
On the whole fossil is fast, not git fast but fast nonetheless. Commits do take a disturbingly long time to complete for some reason, but most of the other commands are fast enough.
Mangling a repository is actually a lot faster with fossil than any other system I can think of, as you can just throw the power of SQL at it. You can find some sqlalchemy ORM definitions in /usr/share/doc/fossil/orm in my packages.
I mentioned this in this first paragraph, but I don’t see us moving to fossil. It is a nice system, but it just wouldn’t work for us as is.
Part of me is tempted to attempt to fix the problems, but then we’d be left with a system that is more obscure than fossil. If you read the Fossil Concepts and Frequently Asked Questions documents you’ll see that the most significant problems for us are actually features for upstream, and that is obviously fine but it does mean upstreaming changes would be impossible.
As noted above, it turns out they require a CLA which means we couldn’t send changes upstream anyway.
That said I’m am planning on stealing some of the ideas that I really liked about fossil for my own use. fossil all‘s ability to run a command against all repositories configured in ~/.fossil for example.