# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 8
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/xrkgfpa
@prologic hmm, I started out on RCS and felt like CVS was a huge leap forward. I never used Mercurial. If I did switch version control systems I think I'd try pijul because the workflow sounds so much safer and easier than git. But I have to admit, the fact that the fossil executable is only around 4 Mbyes and contains the source control stuff, issue tracker, forum, chat room, user management, and ability to serve remote developers makes it pretty attractive. You need separate tools or plugins for that stuff with gitand Microsoft bought one of them and another (Gitea) looks to be going down that road too.
@abucci well, Microsoft bought GitHub, not git. As for Gitea, there is always Gogs.
@bender My point was that fossil has built into it an issue tracker and forum capabilities. git does not. Third parties make these additional tools, which much improve the experience of using git, and one popular one, GitHub, has been purchased by Microsoft. That sucks.
It's silly to wave off such issues just because alternatives exist .Yes, there are alternatives, but it's a giant pain in the ass to have to uproot all your stuff from one tool and switch it to another. Almost surely, in the case of GitHub and now Gitea, you will lose information and people that way. You almost surely won't be able to transfer all the issues, discussions, wikis, etc. wholesale from one of those tools to an alternative. Even if you can, you probably won't be able to convince every single contributor to switch over to the new tool. None of that may matter for small or new hobby projects, but it's an enormous problem for larger, or older, or more well-established projects.
If you've ever been involved in or run a large software project you know what I'm talking about.
I was involved in an endeavor to switch ~20 developers from SVN to git in a company I worked once, and that process took *years* to complete. We lost information from virtually every project, and we gave up on a few projects because they would not convert easily and were too old to put that much energy into. Yes, the change happened eventually and was on the whole the results were great, but it was a big project spanning years to simply switch tools.~
@abucci I don’t mean to insult, but git does what git was made to do, from get go. Because Microsoft bought a business that arguably added value to git I am not going to move to yet another tool. And I am not even a developer, but use git on a daily basics.
Drew DeVault would say you only need git, patch, and email. 😂
@bender why on Earth would you say "I don’t mean to insult"? I don't give a shit I was clarifying a point that appeared to have been missed.
@bender why on Earth would you say "I don’t mean to insult"? I don't give a shit and I don't care which source control methods people use. I'm not evangelizing for fossil--I have never used it. I was clarifying a point that appeared to have been missed.
@abucci I didn’t paid attention that autocorrect had done its marvellous job. 🤦🏻♂️
@bender ugh autocorrect is the worst. I'm over here using git as wel speak for what it's worth 😆