I used fossil professionally for about a year before company got bought out and switched to git. It was interesting. It’s been a few years since then, but here

I used fossil professionally for about a year before company got bought out and switched to git. It was interesting. It’s been a few years since then, but here are my thoughts: * the built-in web server was neat and useful * when things got in a weird state (anyone learning Git knows what I mean)- it was extremely difficult to find a solution. Doing a web search was a waste of time, no one is sharing their useful Fossil SCM knowledge online. * clear text passwords. To clarify this a bit, users are local to the clone, so not like it’s being shared... but then again clear text passwords. I just looked it up again, looks like it’s SHA1 now..... bcrypt would be nice. * Fossil SCM does not believe in altering history. Your not going to find any squash commits or branch rebases. There is a ‘shun’ command for removing sensitive information, but it’s specifically designed to not work like git history edits and has weird behavior regarding clones. Overall, I significantly prefer git. Being able to find solutions if something goes wrong is huge. Not having to train people on another tool when they join the team is good- you can put git as a skill requirement without limiting your options, you can’t do that with Fossil SCM. I learned Git first, so very likely I’m bias on the git-way vs. the fossil way. It was an interesting experience. To have a version control system have a built-in web server, it’s certainly unique!