[Jach]

I can't say anything to your first remark other than different people will want different things, it's unfair to level an implication of hypocrisy on the GP unless they have individually in the past actually complained about wanting to use Fossil because it lacked X but now have this complaint. Myself, I've never had a strong opinion either way, though I had only ever known Fossil for having all these extra features and thought it fascinating, not necessarily good or bad.

I did eventually try Fossil somewhat seriously for a personal project last year. I gave up and moved back to git, and don't think I'll try Fossil again, either personally or for a broader group or company project. I still find the idea of full integration interesting, just not Fossil's execution of it, not to mention some disagreements with the SCM philosophy itself. (For some it's about rebase, for me I realized I rather like the concept of staged/unstaged files or even Perforce-style pending changelists.) Meanwhile a collection of services approach actually works and cross-integrates pretty well especially when you don't have the requirement to try and self-host everything and give yourself that administrative overhead. And you'll get non-ghetto (for lack of a better descriptor) versions of those services.

Still, I don't recommend against Fossil, it's clearly good enough and aligns very well with certain values, people should evaluate it for themselves.