What is acceptable as 'open-source'?

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Paul Rubin <no.email at nospam.invalid>:

> "Frank Millman" <frank at chagford.com> writes:
>> I could stick to hg (or git) but I have recently come across fossil,
>> and it seems ideal for my needs. Has anyone used it?
>
> I've played with it. It's incredibly impressive for such a
> comparatively small program.

Thanks for the tip. I've been looking for the magic bullet since I had
to abandon Sun's TeamWare years back. Unfortunately, fossil seems to
suffer from the same problem as git and hg: they all consider the whole
repository to be the version-controlled "file". There are no independent
changes; parallel changes always result in a conflict that requires
merging.

Darcs apparently tries to be the scientific choice that combines the
best of CVS and git. However, I'm not at all sure that scientific
precision is truly needed.

What I'd like is a hg/git that treated each file independently. That is,
in hg/git terms, consider each file a separate repository.


Marko