[itohihiyt]

Came here for a martial arts tutorial, which I thought was a bit weird to see front page on HN, and now I see an alternative to git.

I don't particularly like git and for personal projects use fossil instead.

Without going through the whole tutorial, and doing a lot more reading, why should I consider using this over fossil?

[abc123abc123]

Interesting. I'm not a professional developer and also love fossil for toy/hobby projects. I find it fascinating that this well crafted, solid piece of software is so forgotten, and that git has just rolled over everything.

[otherme123]

Same here, the fact that it includes bug tracker, web UI and wiki/docs is a huge plus.

[thiht]

Honestly you could sell me the best alternative to Git that exists and I still wouldn’t switch, or even try it. I don’t care enough about my versioning system to use something else than what everybody uses. Ubiquity beats convenience.

What I care about is the tooling around it: GitHub and its ecosystem mainly. I also want my open source projects to be on GitHub specifically, and I don’t want to ask contributors to use something other than Git.

[tmtvl]

Yeah, I was also wondering 'Traditional JJ or BJJ?'

I've never really messed around with VCSes other than git and Subversion, there's people who really like Mercurial though, so I wonder how jj compares to that.

[kettleballroll]

Same. I miss the old times when people tried naming their projects sensibly. I mean, we're constantly telling ourselves how variable and function names should speak for themselves, but then we name our projects using random, completely non-descript names. It's a annoying.

[chronial]

Which old times are you referring to / what are "sensible" names?

I thought about it and I don't know what a better name would be. Off the top of my Head, I know Perforce, BitWarden, Subversion, fossil and git. And then the abbreviations CVS, RCS and SVN.

Do any of these qualify as a descriptive name?