[minerjoe]

> Git will be hard to beat.

With the latest kurfuffle at Github, I've started moving to fossil. Having everything, wiki, pull requests, etc. as part of the repo is looking like a good move.

Why let yet another corporation have control over something they should have never been given?

https://fossil-scm.org

[andrewzah]

github != git ... I'm not sure why people strongly conflate these two so much.

It would be equally as valid to self-host gitea/gogs/sourcehut/gitlab and/or an issue tracker of your choice, which arguably is preferable to adopting a completely different tool over what is a provider issue.

[dan-robertson]

I think all git has going for it is its existing inertia and GitHub. I think the foundations were a bigger deal when git was newer. Other DVCSes have decent foundations.

Going against git is an atrocious user interface (if it were good then [1] would be neither funny nor sad). Most people just memorise a few commands and if they stop working they transfer their changes elsewhere, delete the repo, and start again. Sometimes a team will have a “git expert” who has merely memorised a few more commands and is better able to get a repo out of a broken state. Git fails badly at an important for a developer tool: largely getting out of the way.

[1] https://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/

[reificator]

While that's a common conflation I don't think the GP was doing that. While I tend to self-host git, I can see the value they're claiming fossil has.

Whether self-hosted git or hosting on Github, your issue trackers and such are typically separate from your main repository. Most platforms offer wikis as a side-by-side repository so that should be easy to move, but the rest is at the whims of the platform.

The GP is claiming they moved to fossil because the one repository contains all of this data.

[wtracy]

I think minerjoe is trying to emphasize that fossil has all the features of GitHub included in the VCS itself, eliminating the need for any of the tools you listed above.

I haven't followed Fossil, so hearing that it includes things like a wiki is news to me.

[badsectoracula]

minerjoe is mentioning Fossil specifically because unlike Git it also provides the features (in a broad sense) that GitHub provides (wiki, bug tracker, discussion forum, news/blog, "released" files and of course version control) while remaining fully distributed - these are stored and versioned as part of the repository itself.

As a nice bonus Fossil is a single executable/binary file you can drop anywhere and can act as both the CLI for working with the repository and as the web backend with a bunch of ways to access it including CGI, it's own web server or even as a fake script parser (you can upload the linux binary to any shared host that supports custom script parsers -many do- and use a "script" with a shebang that calls the binary with the path to the repository file, thus allowing you to use Fossil with shared hosting services that do not even know about it).

[swiley]

>Why let yet another corporation have control over something they should have never been given?

I'm pretty sure github doesn't control git.

[minerjoe]

That's not what I was implying. They have control over the pull-requests, the wiki, and all the other meta information.