maybe team size, project size and pace of change are different in the "home" projects of fossil and git. the patch rewiew workflow of the linux kernel communit

maybe team size, project size and pace of change are different in the "home" projects of fossil and git. the patch rewiew workflow of the linux kernel community depends on being able to rework the history until all reviewer agree: this is how this new feature is done, and this is how it is exposed. and then it is added and it history will never be changed again. is that type of workflow possible with fossil? e.g. reworking the history for a feature branch?