Fossil vs Git

Git does not provide good situational awareness

Using Fossil as VCS in a project, to know the status of the entire project, just go to the timeline, and in a single screen you can see a summary of the latest changes to the project, in all branches. Using Git, it is necessary to use third-party graphical viewers in order to have the detail and ease of visualization.

Git makes it difficult to find successors (descendents) of a check-in

It is not impossible, but it is extremely difficult to find descendants using Git.

In contrast, Fossil has the option to display all check-ins that are derived, for example, from the last release.

The mental model for Git is needlessly complex

Git does not track historical branch names

Fossil is able to clearly show the history that happened in old branches, where it started, the merges and the relevant information. Git, using third-party GUIs, is unable to clearly show what happened in the past.

Git requires more administrative support

In turn, Fossil can be installed just by placing the binary in the $PATH. With just one binary, Fossil has the functionality of Git and GitHub/GitLab.

Regarding the hardware needed to run a Fossil instance, a free (or cheap) virtual private server or a Raspberry Pi can be used, whereas GitLab and similar require better hardware.

Git provides a poor user experience

Image from:

Software Development student @ ISEP

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store