Fossil

<title>Fossil Versus Git</title>

<h2>1.0 Don't Stress!</h2>

If you start out using one DVCS and later decide you like the other better,
you can easily [./inout.wiki | move your content].¹

Fossil and [http://git-scm.com | Git] are very similar in many respects,
but they also have important differences.
See the table below for
a high-level summary and the text that follows for more details.
The feature sets of Fossil and [http://git-scm.com | Git] overlap in
many ways. Both are
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control | distributed
version control systems] managing a
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_acyclic_graph | directed acyclic
graph] (DAG) of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree | Merkle
tree] / [./blockchain.md | block chain] structured check-ins to a local
repository clone. In both systems, new content added to the local repo
clone can be pushed up to a remote parent, and changes to the remote can
be easily pulled down to the local clone.  Both systems offer bisecting,
private branches, a stash, etc.

There are also, however, many important differences between these two
DVCSes. We summarize the major differences in the following table, then
detail those differences in the following text.

Keep in mind that you are reading this on a Fossil website, and though
we try to be fair, the information here
might be biased in favor of Fossil.  Ask around for second opinions from
people who have used <em>both</em> Fossil and Git.

Meanwhile, the Git community took until August 2018 to announce
[https://git-scm.com/docs/hash-function-transition/2.18.0|their plan]
for solving the same problem by moving to SHA-256 (a variant of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2|older SHA-2 algorithm]) and until
February 2019 to release a version containing the change. It's looking
like this will take years more to percolate through the community.

The practical impact of SHAttered on
The practical impact of SHAttered on structred data stores like the one
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree | Merkle tree] /
[./blockchain.md | block chain] structred data stores like Git and
Fossil isn't clear, but Fossil moved on the problem quickly and had a
widely-deployed solution to it years ago.
in Git and Fossil isn't clear, but you want to have your repositories
moved over to a stronger hash algorithm before someone figures out how
to make use of the weaknesses in the old one.  Fossil's developers moved
on this problem quickly and had a widely-deployed solution to it years
ago.


<h2 id="missing">3.0 Missing Features</h2>

Most of the capabilities found in Git are also available in Fossil and
the other way around. For example, both systems have local check-outs,
remote repositories, push/pull/sync, bisect capabilities, and a "stash."
Both systems store project history as a directed acyclic graph (DAG)
of immutable check-in objects.

There are many areas where one system has a feature that is simply
missing in the other, however. We covered most of those above, but there
are some others we haven't gotten to yet.
Although there is a large overlap in capability between Fossil and Git,
there are many areas where one system has a feature that is simply
missing in the other. We covered most of those above, but there
are a few remaining feature differences we haven't gotten to yet.


<h3 id="missing-in-git">3.1 Features found in Fossil but missing from Git</h3>

  *  <b>The [/help?cmd=all|fossil all] command</b>

   Fossil keeps track of all repositories and check-outs and allows