Fossil

branches in Fossil are feature-centric.

The Git approach scales much better for large projects like the Linux
kernel with thousands of contributors who in many cases don't even know
each others names.  The integrators serve a gatekeeper role to help keep
undesirable code out of the official Linux source tree.  On the other hand, 
not many projects are as big or as loosely organized as the Linux kernel.
Most project, have a small team of developers who all know each other
Most projects have a small team of developers who all know each other
well and trust each other, and who enjoy working together collaboratively
without the overhead and hierarchy of integrators.

One consequence of the "everybody-sees-everything" focus of Fossil is that
branch names are global and are part of the distributed and synchronized
content of a Fossil repository, rather than being private and user-specific
as they are in Git.

<h3>3.4 Complexity</h3>

Git is a complex system.  It can be tricky to use and requires a fair
amount of knowledge and experience to master.  Fossil strives to be
a much simpler system that can be learned and mastered much more quickly.
Fossil strives to have fewer "gotchas" and quirks that can trip up a

the thinking about version control.

Git requires the developer to maintain a more complex mental model than
most other DVCSes.  Git takes longer to learn.  And you have to spend
more time thinking about what you are doing with Git.  

Fossil strives for simplicity.  Fossil wants to be easy to learn and to
require little thinking about how to operating it.  Reports from the
field indicate that Fossil is mostly successful at this effort.
require little thinking about how to operating it.  
[./quotes.wiki | Reports from the field]
indicate that Fossil is mostly successful at this effort.

<h3>3.5 Web Interface</h3>

Git has a web interface, but it requires a fair amount of setup and an
external web server.  Fossil comes with a fully functional
[./webui.wiki | built-in web-server]
and a really simple mechanism (the "<tt>fossil ui</tt>" command) to
and a really simple mechanism (the "[/help/ui|fossil ui]" command) to
automatically start the web server and bring up a web browser to navigate
it.  The web interface for Fossil is not only easier to set up, it is also
more powerful and easier to use.  The web interface to Fossil is a practical
replacement to the 3rd-party "GUI Tools" that users often employ to operate
Git.

<h3>3.6 Implementation Strategy</h3>

are simply rolled back after the system reboots.

<h3>3.8 Audit Trail</h3>

Git features the "rebase" command which can be used to change the
sequence of check-ins in the repository.  Rebase can be used to "clean up"
a complex sequence of check-ins to make their intent easier for others
to understand.  From another point of view, rebase can be used to
"rewrite history" - to do what
to understand.  This is important if you view the history of a project
as part of the documentation for the project.  
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Smith | Winston Smith] did for
a living in Orwell's novel
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four | 1984].

Fossil deliberately avoids rewriting history.  Fossil strives to follow
the accountants philosophy of never erasing anything.  Mistakes are fixed
by entering a correction, with an explanation of why the correction is
needed.  This can make the history of a project messy, but it also
makes it more honest.  The lack of a "rebase" function is considered
a feature of Fossil, not a bug.
Fossil takes an opposing view.  Fossil views history as sacrosanct and
stubornly refuses to change it.
Fossil allows mistakes to be corrected (for example, check-in comments
can be revised, and check-ins can be moved onto new branches even after
the check-in has occurred) but the correction is an addition to the respository
and the original actions are preserved and displayed alongside
the corrections, thus preserving an historically accurate audit trail.
This is analogous to an accountant marking through an incorrect
entry in a ledger and writing in a correction beside it, rather than
erasing and incorrect entry.

To put it another way, Git remembers what you should have done whereas
Fossil remembers what you actually did.

The lack of a "rebase" command and the inability to rewrite history
is considered a feature of Fossil, not an omission or bug.

<h3>3.9 License</h3>

Both Git and Fossil are open-source.  Git is under 
[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html | GPL] whereas Fossil is
under the 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses | two-clause BSD license].
The difference should not be of a concern to most users.  However,
some corporate lawyers have objections to using GPL products and
are more comfortable with a BSD-style license.