<3 Fossil. I wish it were more popular so I could use it on non-personal projects and still have a hope of attracting collaborators...
Being fair, fossil performance on giant scale projects might not compare quite as well against git or proprietary solutions like Perforce, but for the large majority of projects I expect it is more than adequate.
You can't do patches. You can't rebase. You can't rename files.
Tell me all about this good software and imagination you speak of?
You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar.
> You can't rebase.
You have alternatives. The work philosophy is different, though.
> You can't rename files.
False.
Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do.
>The work philosophy is different, though.
That's an apology if I've ever seen one. Again, not the same.
>False.
Rename a file. Then try to merge. Tell me what happens.
Interesting. That's basically what the people who suggested bundles (a Hg feature) said about patches.
I've used both as appropriate. Handy that Fossil has both.
Patches: You can select any 2 commits and create a patch between them ( http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/vpatch?from=cbda43e71bda52f0&to=e... ). If you want to apply the patch, you can just use patch. Whether patch itself should be integrated directly into fossil is I guess something people can argue over. I don't use patches often, but haven't had issues with them.
Rebase: This is what Hipp has to say - http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil...
These things may not be exactly how you prefer them, but you're misinterpreting my point about good software and imagination. Almost no software in existence is perfect for everyone in every scenario, but that doesn't also mean that no software is good.
Please do not devolve the conversation by making outlandish statements that have no bearing on the conversation.
>If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil
That's the exact opposite point I made though. Fossil constrains me in how I work and how I accomplish certain tasks -- with no benefit. Neither Git or Mercurial do that. What Fossil can do, both Git and Mercurial can do better. So why would I choose Fossil?
If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool. I get value out of it and am not meaningfully impacted by the issues you have with it in practice.
I'm not a salesman and it's free software, so do what makes sense to you.
As an expert on myself, I must disagree.
>If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool.
I don't use it. But I think you need to remember what I replied to, as that's an ill-placed sentiment in this thread.