Yeah, I feel exactly the same way. For me, the turning point was discovering hg-git, which allows me to use hg as a git client; so I get all the network effects

Yeah, I feel exactly the same way. For me, the turning point was discovering hg-git, which allows me to use hg as a git client; so I get all the network effects of GitHub but without needing to, you know, actually have to use git. But I still miss Fossil. I like the simplicity, and the feature set (although last I looked it still didn't do rename tracking), and the immutable nature of the database... I particularly liked the way that it's also a webserver. Being able to have your project web in a branch and when you want to make it live you just atomically update a tag is beautiful. The wiki I never used much, preferring to use manually version-controlled markdown files instead. The bug tracker... actually works pretty well, but it needs a lot of setup before it looks and feels anything other than ropy. (Although this may have changed. When I stopped following fossil it was undergoing a big UI overhaul.) If it supported bidirectional git sync, I'd switch back in a heartbeat. Update: having just fetched the latest version from Debian, there's lots of new stuff. 'fossil fusefs' lets you mount the repository as a read-only filesystem, which is cool. There's better support for private branches. There's a monster machine-readable interface based around json data packets. You can now have unversioned but synced files? Possibly this is for big binaries where you don't care about history? There's a 'fossil stash'. There's full-text search. You can export bundles of changesets so you can pass them around (pull requests, basically). Oh, and 'fossil praise' and 'fossil blame' are synonyms. It looks like there is support for git bidirectional sync, but it looks a bit hacky: https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/027298d991dec3a7 https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/027298d991dec3a7