Re: git or Fossil?

On 04/28/2013 08:43 AM, John Griessen wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 10:28 PM, al davis wrote:
>> It looks like "git" is the choice,
>> but I invite other opinions.

Fossil bears consideration as it is reliably used for several years, has features aimed at
smaller devel numbers than the linux kernel, (that git is aimed at), and seems like it
will reduce project lead effort at cat herding existing devels and promoting to get more developers.

Features that matter most:

Autosync - Fossil supports "autosync" mode which helps to keep projects moving forward by reducing
the amount of needless forking and merging often associated with distributed projects.

Self-Contained - Fossil is a single stand-alone executable that contains everything needed to do configuration management. 
Installation is trivial

Bug Tracking And Wiki - In addition to doing distributed version control like Git and Mercurial, Fossil also supports distributed 
bug tracking, distributed wiki, and a distributed blog mechanism

Web Interface - Fossil has a built-in and easy-to-use web interface that simplifies project tracking and promotes situational 
awareness. Simply type "fossil ui" from within any check-out and Fossil automatically opens your web browser in a page that gives 
detailed graphical history and status information on that project.

Fossil acknowledges how many people are already up and using git, mercurial, and has import export
for those, so others can work away in style they are used to, then convert to fossil format
to merge in.  It is probably easy to set up a git and fossil repo to track, but only in the
sense of git branch tracking a fossil branch, since fossil doesn't allow rebase rewriting of history
as git does.

http://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki