> e.g. rewriting history, as is necessary for kernel-scale projects, is an unwavering absolute no-no in fossil
We could go further, but yeah, this is basically the biggest problem. I know this is a fundamental attribute of Fossil and that's fine, but to me it makes Fossil unusable as a VC system for most serious projects. I don't think of VC as an immutable record, I think of it as a tool for organization and collaboration that also allows me to have documentation around repository history, and I don't think that immutable history helps with either documentation or collaboration.
Obviously some people disagree with me on that, but the really short answer is that I think the way Fossil defines version control is misguided, so it's unlikely I would ever make the switch over.
We could go further, but yeah, this is basically the biggest problem. I know this is a fundamental attribute of Fossil and that's fine, but to me it makes Fossil unusable as a VC system for most serious projects. I don't think of VC as an immutable record, I think of it as a tool for organization and collaboration that also allows me to have documentation around repository history, and I don't think that immutable history helps with either documentation or collaboration.
Obviously some people disagree with me on that, but the really short answer is that I think the way Fossil defines version control is misguided, so it's unlikely I would ever make the switch over.