Git views the codebase as mutable. It's really well set up for changing the historical record to reflect how you wish it had been done. This is necessary for la

Git views the codebase as mutable. It's really well set up for changing the historical record to reflect how you wish it had been done. This is necessary for large team dev efforts - it means the history is mostly a sequence of atomic changes to functionality or code structure, with some reverts when CI judged the patch inadequate. Fossil views the historical record as immutable. Your sequences of mistakes, iteration, failed experiments are all diligently recorded. I like that, means I get to revisit missteps and abandoned branches later. However it is clearly a scaling hazard. I don't want to see the incremental hacking around of a thousand other people. Nor would I want to prohibit that sort of exploration. My personal work is in fossil repos, going back a decade across various operating systems and versions of fossil. It has literally never let me down.