BitKeeper VS Fossil

If you're feeling adventurous, [bitkeeper](https://bitkeeper.org) handles binaries well. - Source: Hacker News / over 2 years ago

Feedback to author: The diagram and explanation took a beat longer than normal to scan, since this buries a bit that it's not about the beautiful source control system called fossil shipped as a composition of modules: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki Great diagrams, so of course that's the first thing a reader will skim. People biuld things based on git all the time, the diagram looks like... - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago

There are (all too rare) tools that back those objects with git as well. And there's always fossil ... https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki But it's not git. :-(. - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago

I don't think git should be the infrastructure of collaboration. It's good for long-lived artifacts, but isn't good for discussion, for rights management, ... Fossil (https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki) is of course better, but if git must remain, I believe the base infrastructure should be the mailing list. Patches, branches and releases can live inside a mailing list, it is naturally built for... - Source: Hacker News / 8 months ago

Have you spent much time using Fossil? https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki. - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago

> To make things more complicated, they also use their a relatively niche version management system instead of git. Which would complicate making contributions (if they accepted them). The Fossil VCS actually has a page explaining why it was created, instead of just using Git: https://sqlite.org/whynotgit.html Honestly, a lot of those points make sense, especially how Git is perhaps a little bit more complex and... - Source: Hacker News / 12 months ago