Fossil SCM
Language moderation in fossil-v-git.wiki
Commit
5e380ec394b5d88143cd318c6913192ff8e0b856da11f2ed5469e4aa255cc059
Parent
00af3dbf8bb20bc…
1 file changed
+1
-1
+1
-1
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| @@ -114,11 +114,11 @@ | ||
| 114 | 114 | software needed to give it a Fossil-equivalent feature set. Consider |
| 115 | 115 | [https://about.gitlab.com/|GitLab], a third-party extension to Git |
| 116 | 116 | wrapping it in many features, making it roughly Fossil-equivalent, |
| 117 | 117 | though [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html|much more |
| 118 | 118 | resource hungry] and hence more costly to run than the equivalent |
| 119 | -Fossil setup. GitLab's requirements are tolerable when you're dedicating | |
| 119 | +Fossil setup. GitLab's basic requirements are easy to accept when you're dedicating | |
| 120 | 120 | a local rack server or blade to it, since that's about the smallest |
| 121 | 121 | thing you could call a "server" these days, but when you go to host that |
| 122 | 122 | in the cloud, you can expect to pay about 8⨉ as much to comfortably host |
| 123 | 123 | GitLab as for Fossil. This difference is largely due to basic |
| 124 | 124 | technology choices: Ruby and PostgreSQL vs C and SQLite. |
| 125 | 125 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -114,11 +114,11 @@ | |
| 114 | software needed to give it a Fossil-equivalent feature set. Consider |
| 115 | [https://about.gitlab.com/|GitLab], a third-party extension to Git |
| 116 | wrapping it in many features, making it roughly Fossil-equivalent, |
| 117 | though [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html|much more |
| 118 | resource hungry] and hence more costly to run than the equivalent |
| 119 | Fossil setup. GitLab's requirements are tolerable when you're dedicating |
| 120 | a local rack server or blade to it, since that's about the smallest |
| 121 | thing you could call a "server" these days, but when you go to host that |
| 122 | in the cloud, you can expect to pay about 8⨉ as much to comfortably host |
| 123 | GitLab as for Fossil. This difference is largely due to basic |
| 124 | technology choices: Ruby and PostgreSQL vs C and SQLite. |
| 125 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -114,11 +114,11 @@ | |
| 114 | software needed to give it a Fossil-equivalent feature set. Consider |
| 115 | [https://about.gitlab.com/|GitLab], a third-party extension to Git |
| 116 | wrapping it in many features, making it roughly Fossil-equivalent, |
| 117 | though [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html|much more |
| 118 | resource hungry] and hence more costly to run than the equivalent |
| 119 | Fossil setup. GitLab's basic requirements are easy to accept when you're dedicating |
| 120 | a local rack server or blade to it, since that's about the smallest |
| 121 | thing you could call a "server" these days, but when you go to host that |
| 122 | in the cloud, you can expect to pay about 8⨉ as much to comfortably host |
| 123 | GitLab as for Fossil. This difference is largely due to basic |
| 124 | technology choices: Ruby and PostgreSQL vs C and SQLite. |
| 125 |