Git: Used by everyone else
Fossil: Not used by everyone else
I wish it wasn't the case, but network effects are really important. Mercurial was a better DVCS launched around the same time as git but it lost out, not because "worse is better" but the network effects spreading out from the of the linux kernel itself.
It is not just because the CLI is more intuitive, though it plays a big part.
The main reason is that mercurial is more opinionated. On a default setup, only a few commands are available, and none of them let you change the history. If you want more, you have to add an extension. These are built-in, that's just a line in a configuration file, so that's not much of an obstacle, but you have to be deliberate. It gives a natural progression, and it better defines the project organization.
With git, you have everything and the kitchen sink, literally, as it uses the "plumbing" and "porcelain" metaphor. All flavors of merge, rebase and fast forward are available, there is a git-reset command that does a dozen of different things, there is stash, the staging area, etc... The first month or two on git, I was a bit overwhelmed, none of that with Mercurial, and I already had the experience of Mercurial when I switched to git, so I was familiar with the concept of push/pull and DAGs.
Now, I tend to prefer git, though after many years, I still have trouble wrapping my head around the command line sometimes. But that's for the same reason it was so hard to me to get into it. It gives out a lot of freedom and possibilities. For example, I like the fact it is really decentralized, for example in one project the customer had a completely separate central repository we couldn't access, and they couldn't access ours, for security reasons. We worked by exchanging bundle files. At some point we also took advantage of the fact that it is possible to have more than one root commit. Also, almost all mistakes are fixable and it is hard to really lose anything (including secrets, so beware!).
For a video game analogy, Mercurial introduces you to new game mechanics as you progress, while Git makes you start in the middle of the map with all the skills unlocked.
More add-on discussion including Microsoft+Git spurred by your previous comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15725497
From the Facebook blog post, it seems like the key issue was Facebook's internal filesystem monitoring tool (Watchman) was easier to integrate with Mercurial than with Git:
https://engineering.fb.com/2014/01/07/core-infra/scaling-mer...
So, neither Mercurial-out-of-the-box nor Git-out-of-the-box could handle huge monorepos. But Mercurial's willingness to make some modifications made it easier for Facebook to integrated their custom tooling to avoid the slow Big-O O(n) scans for changed files.
Fossil is used for one of the most deployed embeddable database. Not sure we can call it "irrelevant".
I get what your message is saying, however words have meaning, and being hyperbolic does not help anyone when we try to bring nuances.
> Mercurial was a better DVCS [...]
Totally agree.
In other words: its use of any specific VCS is pretty much irrelevant.
There are plenty of situation in which all that matters is that the people actually building are happy with it and a tool that literally nobody else uses would be fine.
Indeed, for many engineering jobs (software and other) in some industries, it's entirely necessary to create new tools and use extremely specialiased. Good people will learn how to use (and build/improve them).
I'd possibly go as far as arguing that a sign of a good team is willingness to aggressively use the right tool for the job even if it is obscure or something they have to build themselves.
Sure, if you're hoping to get traction with an open source JavaScript library… git and github maybe be pre-requisites, but for projects of a certain sort "reach" and "adoption" by other developers are the most important metric. (Though, SQLite has done just fine with Fossil, so there's probably a degree of overstatement in the idea that it anything has to use git / be on Github.)
I have recently returned to Fossil for personal stuff. IMO its better than git for one person projects and small teams. It was designed for a small team. What everyone else uses does not really matter for personal stuff. Nor does it matter if you are working with people willing to try something new. Nor does it matter to someone who can take a decision for a team.
It is also very easy to self host.
I'm so old that I remember people saying that about Linux, PostgreSQL, and AMD processors ;)
Git had only been around for a handful of years at the time. If not for people slowly adopting it a little at a time, thus leading to the network effect, Git would not have become the dominant VCS of the day. So yeah, when things like this, JJ, etc come along, it's worth paying attention and keeping an open mind cause any one of them might be the "everything else is irrelevant," tool in fifteen years.
It’s not that big of a deal with a good UI. Reality is you just use whatever the people that pay you use.
And you could probably get rid of like... 90% of things people complain about by just writing better frontend (and some people did that) to same backend
Programmers use different operating systems, editors, languages - is there any reason we all have to use the same source control tool? We weren’t doing so before Git came along.
Even before git, you generally had to use what your team was using, or the FOSS project you were trying to contribute to. So it's kind of a moot point.
Nothing is forever (and Microsoft owns Github now, so if I were a betting man…)
Those users wouldn't mind switching to Fossil if the graphical interface is reasonably easy to discover and use.
Today my workflow is based on git + gerrit code review (which is heavily based around git), or in other areas github pull requests, and there is no such thing as a series of little commits that all hodge-podge together to form a particular change to the code, we tailor changes to be perfect, we push -f to keep each commit in the series to be a full and CI-tested story of a change, then we squash-merge them. My use with git is 100% all day things that were impossible with Mercurial back when I used it, if there are extensions for these things now, they are afterthoughts, git understood these concepts from the beginning.
git allows for folks to be Pinky's out with their commit history for warm an fuzzies.
If you think editing history is a grand idea that should be used regularly (like with rebase) then I already know you likely haven't been responsible for large mature code base. Where you'd rather have every comment, change and scrap of info available to understand what you're trying to maintain because the folks before you are long gone.
Oops, I made a mistake two commits ago, I'd really like to get some dumb print statements I added out before I send this off to get merged is perfectly valid, I just did it yesterday. A quick `git commit --fixup` followed by `git rebase -i --autosquash HEAD^3` and I had some dumb debugging code I left in stripped out.
Then, there's other perfectly valid uses of rebase, like a simple `git rebase main` in an active development branch to reparent my commits on the current HEAD instead of having my log messed up with a dozen merge commits as I try to keep the branch both current and ready to merge.
So, yes, I do think editing history is a grand idea that should be used regularly. It lets me make all the stupid "trying this" and "stupid bug" commits I want, without polluting the global history.
Or, are you telling me you've also never ended up working on two separate tasks in a branch, thinking they would be hard to separate into isolated changes, and they ended up being more discrete than you expected so you could submit them as two separate changes with a little help from `git cherry-pick` and `git rebase` too?
Editing history isn't evil. Editing history such that pulls from your repository break? That's a different story entirely.
Caring more about a "visually pleasing log" when you can care about an information rich log doesn't jive with me. Logs aren't supposed to be "clean"
If I want features in two branches, I make two branches. Cherry pick also is bad for most people, most of the time.
> Where you'd rather have every comment, change and scrap of info available to understand what you're trying to maintain because the folks before you are long gone.
see that's a common story from a legacy way of working, back when everyone wrote perl / php scripts and shoved it all into a repo.
The way that people years from now understand what someone else did is that when that someone else does the thing, it's presented for code review. That is, your patch does not go in at all if nobody else knows how it works. You present each change as a logical series of commits, without lots of noise like "fixed typo" or "oops forgot this test", just the way people present patches on the LKML (this is why Linus "got it" before anyone else did), and then other people review it, which is where it's established, "this change makes sense, I understand why and how you did it, and it has good tests".
When you work on a project that is truly long term, you yourself need these records to understand what you did 10 or 15 years ago. So there's no issue that short term history was modified, this is actually essential, because what you're doing is editing the story of how a change came about and presenting it for review. Having it be a long series of small commits that sometimes reverse each other is not going to help anyone understand a particular feature or change, it's noise.
If your problem with commit history is that folks have too many useless commits and you can't personally be bothered to focus on the meat of the PR, that'sa probablem with the commit author and PR reviewer. Not a fundamental need to prune logs.
Yeah. I was using Mercurial and, reluctanctly, had to switch to Git. Now don't get me wrong: I was forced to use both CVS and SVN in a thankfully very distant past so I love Git. But I do miss Mercurial. We switched exactly for the reason you mentioned: Git simply won the market.
Git won, Magit is awesome. Then all the Github and whatnots. It's Git, Git and Git.
And never bet against Linus, either: the world runs on Linux (and that's a good thing) and every tech company in the world uses Git. That's just how it is.
Mercurial was a tiny bit better but not that much better that it'd compensate for the entire ecosystem and people gravitating towards Git.
Maybe it is true that name is destiny after all.
People will call me crazy, but you can tell Claude Code what you need with Git on your local repo and it will spit out the terminal incantations, you can also... tell it to run them after you read them.
I like the idea of having all of those within the actual VCS, mostly because with Git you need centralized services like GitHub to provide that.
But I have to ask: Is it really a good idea? Seems like feature creep motivated by the wants of a single project (SQLite).
All of those could be (albeit awkwardly) backed with a git repo and a cron job. Wiki? Just make a repo with a bunch of Markdown or this-week's-favorate-markup-language files. Ticketing & bug tracking? Again, just a Markdown file for every ticket. Embedded documentation & technical notes? Those are just special wiki pages with different attributes. Forum and chat service? Do you want your VCS to do that? I get being able to hyperlink between files and conversations, but still.
I'd love to clone a repo and be able to view all the reasoning behind commits with the context of issues too. I know the commit message should cover this but sometimes it doesn't, or its too much context, or the context is limited to the opinion of the committer. I think all that information is relevant to projects and should have some chance to live alongside it. Stuff like git-bug exists, but then you still need participation from other people.
I really love the idea of radicle.xyz which is git + p2p + issues & patches (called `COB` - collaborative objects) all in your repo but getting the buy-in of the wider population seems extremely difficult, if not impossible. I think part of the attraction here specifically is nostalgia for me, it feels like its invoking the 90s/00s where it was all a big mesh network, information wanted to be free and you couldn't stop the signal.
Fossil also seems cool but the rest of the world is tied to git and I'm tied to jj now. I guess I really wish git themselves [sic] would push something forward, I think that's the only way it would really get broad acceptance. Forges could adopt it and try and special-sauce parts but still let you push/pull "COB"s.
The plan is to 1) finish the webUI and 2) accept external auth (e.g. github OAuth). Once done, anyone can trivially host publicly their own forge and accept public contribution without any buy-in effort. Then, if user wants to go native they just install git-bug locally.
Or, from Wikipedia, "The definition of what qualifies as "feature creep" varies among end users, where what is perceived as such by some users may be considered practical functionality by others." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creep
Hipp (the original SQLite author) also developed his own parser generator (Lemon) and his own editor (e). The former is also used by other projects.
Where do you store the different attributes? In the file-system? How do you manage consistency? Why put up with awkward cron solutions when you have a fully ACID database system right there to work with, which is portable across OSes, including ones which don't have cron?
If it helps any, don't think of it as a VCS but as an SCM system - one which includes version control.
I found https://github.com/chrislloyd/git-remote-sqlite as a way to achieve git-on-sqlite, which works by registering itself as a git "remote" helper.
Amusingly there exists a "Why SQLite Does Not Use Git" article (https://sqlite.org/whynotgit.html), but there is no corresponding "Why Git Does Not Use SQLite".
For one, you probably don't want your git repo permanently corrupted if you happen to be running it over an NFS mount.
There is a lot of value in "scattered write-once files" as a storage mechanism.
And yet Fossil doesn't use SQLite for its own data model, just as a blob store with indices.
"Fossil is not Relational": https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-is-not-rela...
Edit: Wow, it supports markdown now? and a forum? OK...
Sharing the repo state seems impossible without going through the (somewhat painful) multi-step process to tag and push commits into git, and you lose all of the value that jujitsu actually adds (e.g. no evolog, no saved conflicts, no anonymous commits). There is no sharing solution beyond this - no way for me to work on the same working state in two locations beyond rsync the entire folder tree, which is no solution.
A SCM in 2026 that only works locally without being a clunky way of talking to git doesn't seem like a solution ready for prime-time. Maybe the google-internal-only backend systems work better.
My main other pain points were a) zero integration with pre-commit hooks and zero ideas how to do so (yes, CI does this, but it's nice to get all the auto-formatting and sanity checks without pushing, waiting, pulling new commits), and b) Automatically picking up all changes is great except when it doesn't work in which case it is _horrible_ and takes manual unpicking at best. Remembered to add something to .gitignore before doing something in the working directory? Great! Just never ever try to checkout a commit from before you added the .gitignore because now it's permanently absorbed into the repo. Also, if you every accidentally have a secret in your repo directory then that's also permanently in there, as far as I can tell there is no way to manually verify that things are purged and all the commentary on the jujitsu discussion forums were "Just avoid doing this in the first place".
I think this assertion is too vague and arguably wrong. It's unclear which traits would lead a Git alternative to be claimed as better, and even if those traits, if they exist, are relevant. It's also unclear if the tradeoffs of switching tooling away from Git are worth whatever hypothetical benefit there is to be had.
I would make the bold claim that Git is undoubtedly better than any conceivable alternative, and state that the network effect is a consequence and not a side-effect. Anyone is free to try to argue against it by pointing out concrete arguments.
I don't really like git that much, but it works pretty well most of the time.
For my hobby projects I have used fossil for several years. It works great and I do not miss anything from git. It's simpler and just nicer to use.
If nothing else I felt like using the same version control system for over 10 years was getting boring. Needed something new to play with. See things from a new perspective. Like playing with a new programming language now and then, even when it is something I do not expect to get much real use out of.
For practical cases `git worktree` allows to have multiple checkouts. Document marks this section as "partly disputed" with an external link. IMHO git worktrees has the same ergonomics as in fossil. This section kinda discredits the rest of the article.
pre-commit hooks?
Also, what are they talking about with "POSIX systems", is this a really old SCM? I've been using git natively on Windows for so many years, I don't remember how many.
Either way, any new SCM needs to interoperate or easily convert git repos if it wants mass adaption. I don't think git is programmatic enough, it can get really obese really fast (even with pruning/gc), it would be great if client-side "plugins" were a thing pushed by remotes (for things like secret scanning, linting), and I do agree that something like sqlite as a back-end would suit it better for performance. I would want newer gits to really be thought as more than an SCM. People are using it to manage all kinds of state. You can run countries with the dam thing! :), and some are trying.
I've thought about distributed-ledgers using git too, with or to replace block-chains.
However for pure Code/Bin-repos....i miss Bitkeeper :-(
There are Git work trees so I can make many checkouts per repository.
In most cases, embedding SQLite is the best solution. And that is exactly what it was designed for.
* Apple Mail ( "~/Library/Mail/V5/MailData/Envelope Index" )
* Legacy database in Android
* Firefox, Thunderbird
* Google Chrome, Edge
It is quick, simple, reliable and have enough performance for it's use case. Instead of using text files or develop own database formats.