Fossil versus Git

A large number of Fossil positives are related to not having rebase. It feels like this is a huge concern for functionality that many people, do not use that often. The last time I used rebase at a job was maybe 5 years ago? Other than that my bigger gripe is when I read something like this: > Git strives to record what the development of a project should have looked like had there been no mistakes Git does not…

It's missing what's sadly the only important difference: Git: Used by everyone else Fossil: Not used by everyone else Everything else is kind of irrelevant. Git is hard to use and awkward to master, but you need to do so anyone to work with everyone else. I wish it wasn't the case, but network effects are really important. Mercurial was a better DVCS launched around the same time as git but it lost out, not because "worse is better" but…

> When every commit is pushed to the parent repo by default, it encourages a working style in which every commit is tested first. It encourages thinking before acting. We believe this is an inherently good thing. Sounds like a bad thing to me. Sometimes I just want to make sure my work is saved in remote before quitting for the day, even if I haven't rigorously tested said changes.

I made this comment on a post a few days ago about using a different SCM: > I feel like an SCM would have to be WAY better than git to make it worth using. The entire developer community is on git, so you are still going to have to know how to use git in order to access other open source projects. If you are already going to have to be using git for many things, why add a…