I can’t speak for exactly what the Fossil team meant with that quote, but I guess I don’t think it matters, because the quote isn’t fully in good faith no matte

I can’t speak for exactly what the Fossil team meant with that quote, but I guess I don’t think it matters, because the quote isn’t fully in good faith no matter how you take it. I mean it’s no worse than a TV commercial where they make problems look worse than they are to trash the competitor’s product, but it’s no better either. You read my intention correctly, I mean that the developers of git are not enforcing a workflow wrt history (unlike the developers of Fossil). The language on Fossil’s git comparison page use to be worse, it use to say “Rebase is a Lie”, and it used to talk about how people who rewrite history are “fabricating” and “lying”. I actually had a direct conversation with Dr. Hipp here on HN where he agree to soften the language a bit, and he did, which I respect… he is listening. He does, however, believe strongly in the idea that commit history should not be allowed to be ‘rewritten’, so much so that he considers rewriting to be akin to criminal activity. While I don’t agree with that, I have no qualms whatsoever about a VCS that preserves history. It might actually be a really good idea, as long as it’s practical and can be managed and serves the purposes of version control. My only beef is the hyperbolic comparisons to git, the claims that presume to state git’s intent.