[booleandilemma]

I think there are 2 core principles governing fossil:

1) It wants to be the only tool you need to bring with you if you and your fellow developers are going to be stuck on a desert island. It’s not only version control, but also an issue tracker, and more recently a chat app.

2) It preserves everything you commit to it. Whereas git lets you polish your commit history before pushing, fossil keeps everything. You can’t alter your local history. All your messy scratch work can’t be cleaned up. It’s visible forever.

That second point is what turns me off to it, so I’ve stuck with git for personal projects. When I push up my local code, I like to have a very clean history.

[andi999]

Thanks. They really seem to have a bias against deleting (and not so good rationalizations):https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/shunning.wiki

Apart from that, did you try it, and was it smooth?

[booleandilemma]

I tried it just for an afternoon, but I did find it easy to work with.

I find git easy to work with too though, as long as everyone sticks to a well-defined workflow and doesn’t do anything weird.

[andi999]

Maybe that is the problem here, we do not have a defined workflow. Do you know of any good workflow sheet for git we can lift ideas from?

[stingraycharles]

So if I understand correctly there’s no equivalent to git squash merging branches?