"Fossil doesn't have any concept of patch management via email, which is fairly central to most OSS projects I'm involved with." Don't you use 3 sites, one you

"Fossil doesn't have any concept of patch management via email, which is fairly central to most OSS projects I'm involved with." Don't you use 3 sites, one you write that try to optimise away from this ghetto process? I had a look at your accounts, some of your projects have 0 followers, and your average follower count is around 0.9. You can calculate your average commit and contributor volume on your own, or maybe write that into Kiln. If your download count just increased to 1, that's because I accidentally clicked between the headings and got a .gz file with an attachment header from the server (wtf?). I think the most important thing in the original article is the serious point that there are plenty of us out there who have to know and use all of the SCMs and tbh, they aren't really that different. All the ones I use in OSS do one major job: SCM. Even as you put it on your blog "the enemy of git and mercurial" (wtf?) subversion actually does a good job at this. For a long time it was king, too. In fact, I still miss the svn/trac combo, but Zeds point about this being a shit to setup and consuming way too much by way of server and admin resources is spot on the money. Not wanting some commercial venture to host it for you / or not liking their specific feature set is taste, but it won't stop anyone that matters from using your code, or submitting patches. Man I should never come to HN, clearly.