I've heard about it, and it does have an interesting feature set, but I've also heard negatives. The comparison with git is very shallow, seemingly based on mi

I've heard about it, and it does have an interesting feature set, but I've also heard negatives. The comparison with git is very shallow, seemingly based on misunderstandings of how git works. On branches they describe the Linus/Linux workflow, ignoring the fact that a more traditional workflow can also be supported by git. In fact "git flow" is a recommended workflow, and it's pretty much exactly what Fossil does (only with more flexible merging options). Sharding vs. Replication turns out to be a matter of defaults; otherwise there's no material difference. The web interface is cool, but I use GUI tools locally that are nicer and faster than any web interface could possibly be. Speaking of, there are a plethora of GUI tools available, free and for pay, for GIT. Rebase is one of my favorite Git features; they claim it's a feature that it doesn't exist in Fossil. Complexity is a good point, and git has famously bad command-line UI. I'm sure Fossil does a better job there; Mercurial and Bazaar certainly do. But git has the features I need, which isn't true of Mercurial or Bazaar, and git has a user base of a sufficient size (compared to Fossil) that I don't worry that I'll hit some corner case bug and lose data. Zed Shaw used to be a major fan of Fossil, for instance, but then he lost a repo irretrievably and swore off using it. His old site with essays seems to be down, or I'd link his posting about it. Having everything in an SQLite database means that SQLite usually will be safe, but if something does go wrong, well, you're screwed.