[emodendroket]

Well yeah because git is, I find, good enough that I don’t have much desire to experiment with other SCM tools. Some people love customizing every part of their tool chain but to me it’s better to stick with something familiar with things like that so I can focus on solving my actual problem.

[mscrnt]

But have you tried Fossil to see if it does meet your way superior standard? Unless you're working on Linux kernel- or BSD-sized repositories, Fossil is arguably a better fit than Git. You don't need to customise anything out of the box—it's literally a single binary anywhere on your path and you have your version control, bug tracking, wiki, forum, chat, technotes, etc. in-house. Your team won't need to visit but one server—that really streamlines focusing on solving your actual problem.

[emodendroket]

Pretty much everyone already uses git and some kind of issue tracker so the question is more if it's so much better to justify learning a new thing, not if it is slightly better in the abstract. It is not immediately obvious to me that bundling all these things into one tool is going to give better results, especially when you have non-developer users in the mix.

[mscrnt]

I understand if you're locked-in to using Git for work so don't have a choice in the matter. But given the almost frictionless path to trying Fossil for personal or open source projects, I don't understand the "everyone already uses git" stance. If everyone took that position with rcs or svn, everyone wouldn't already be using Git today. I appreciate the non-developer concerns, but directing laymen to one place, to one repository file, to one executable binary to use a piece of software and/or to contribute to a project, might also deliver better results; it's difficult to definitively say without trying. I can only confirm my own experience, but surmise it would be a similar better experience for most others too.