I really love the idea of a powerful, shrink-wrapped scm + ticketing etc. system, and I'm a sqlite fan, but fossil hasn't worked out for me.

Since the whole tracker is just a thin front on sqlite with the above features there's many options. Use it per-project persistently so as to include co-workers, or only locally for your own agents to "think" inside of so they are less likely to dump CoT all over the code-comments. Use it even at a per task granularity, and throw it away afterwards. Do all three, fossil doesn't care! And the agents will love it.

Off-topic, but I kinda like the style sheet of this article.

The first line of the article says:

"People at Git has started to work on a proposal to make the Rust programming language mandatory."

This sounded to me like all future code would need to be Rust.

But the Git mailing list email says:

"Announce that Git 3.0 will make Rust a mandatory part of our build infrastructure."

Also, the original Git mailing list email says:

"[author is porting to Rust the...] "varint.c" subsystem, mostly because it is trivial and does not have any dependencies."

So, the email on the Git list says they are testing changing a small piece of C code to Rust, and Rust build tools will be mandatory [to build] (which is not surprising if a non-optional part of the code base is Rust).

https://repo.autonoma.ca/repo/treetrek

This is by far the most perplexing part of this article for me:

> People at Git has started to work on a proposal to make the Rust programming language mandatory. I don't like Rust and, above all, I don't like its community of little extremist characters who are trying to make everyone swallow their crap by rewriting projects that have been working for decades, doing social media brigading, and other nice little gems worthy of any tiny group with totalitarian delusions. That's why when I see that a project aims to "force" the use of or the switch from C to Rust, to the extent of my possibilities, I flee from it as if I were pursued by the Balrog of the Lord of the Rings with his whip.

I've been programming for a longish time, and I've acquired my own set of opinions about programming languages, but I can't think of any that I dislike so strongly that I would need to boycott projects that use them under the hood. Moreover, even if we accept the "community of little extremist characters" claim for the sake of argument, is that at all relevant to the Git situation? I haven't seen any evidence that introducing Rust into the code base is the result of extremism, rather than just a mundane technology choice. Finally, when Rust is made "mandatory," it does not mean you must use Rust now, it just means that Rust is required to build the source code. The vast majority of people wouldn't even know that Rust was used. Even most Git developers wouldn't need to use Rust, since after more than a year from the original proposal, the Git source tree is still almost entirely written in C and shell scripts, and the amount of Rust code is basically a rounding error.

The whole Rust issue seems like a big nothingburger, and this reaction seems completely irrational to me.

oh great, another weirdo

rust solves a real problem. It makes it much harder to create a large class of bugs, bugs that are in most C and C++ projects (and many other languages). Sure, maybe rusteans have bad attitudes. Not sure that's true but I do get the annoyance of "I re-wrote cat in rust!".

We see these C/C++ bugs all over. Mozilla just fixed a ton of them, most of which would not have existed if Firefox was written in rust (see servo). That doesn't mean there would be zero bugs. It means there would be less. But by some accounts, a ton less, especially of the security issue kind.

And it's not just about the op, the op being a perfect expert programmer who never writes bugs. It's about someone quits, someone who doesn't know the code as well and takes over, they quit, someone who knows the code even less takes over, and in that world, the person adding a new feature to the app/tool/library is far less likely to add a security bug to a rust repo than an C/C++ repo.

> rewriting projects that have been working for decades

They have been working for decades AND are full of security bugs!

Switching them to rust generally means (1) the existing security bugs are gone (2) most future updates are far less likely to add new ones.

Note: I'm not a rust programmer. I'm a C++ programmer dealing with the fact that there are so many UaF bugs in our code with > 1000 programmers. We know more will be added because C++ does not prevent them and we're not perfect. Rust does, or at least it prevents enough of them to be worth it.

But Rust is actually a better language than C, in multiple ways; and it is in fact bad that so much software in common use is still written in C. C is extremely hard to write correctly and hard to maintain; this fact explains a huge amount of security vulnerabilities in the widely-used software written in C. Rust mitigates this to a large extent, and is also just more pleasant to write because it has better syntactic and semantic affordances than C does - also better developer tooling.

I think that people who are not Anglophone left-progressives should use Rust, in part because I think it is bad that a highly useful programming language is associated with Anglophone left-progressives. Certainly, regardless of one's non-programming-related political beliefs, you should not ground your identity in making a virtue out of sticking to C.