Rename: https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/help/rename - Merge only merges content, but the content does get updated between renamed files. Also note that while rename and mv work similarly, only mv can be used with --hard to also rename the actual file on the drive. If you know of an issue with renaming, you should report it on the bug tracker.

Patches: You can select any 2 commits and create a patch between them ( http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/vpatch?from=cbda43e71bda52f0&to=e... ). If you want to apply the patch, you can just use patch. Whether patch itself should be integrated directly into fossil is I guess something people can argue over. I don't use patches often, but haven't had issues with them.

Rebase: This is what Hipp has to say - http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.fossil...

These things may not be exactly how you prefer them, but you're misinterpreting my point about good software and imagination. Almost no software in existence is perfect for everyone in every scenario, but that doesn't also mean that no software is good.

Fossil leaves me with no reason to use it. What it can do, Git and Mercurial can do better. Saying that no software fits the use case for everyone, everywhere is completely irrelevant. Other software not fitting into every mold completely, while fossil doesn't really bring anything to the table to cover what other solutions don't, doesn't really justify its existence as a solution in any way.

If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil, then I guess fossil isn't what you need, because fossil is different. I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration, though. Use whatever you like, these aren't football teams. :P

>I'm not sure why you're being toxic and venting frustration

Please do not devolve the conversation by making outlandish statements that have no bearing on the conversation.

>If you need something that works in exactly the way you're used to and that's how you evaluated fossil

That's the exact opposite point I made though. Fossil constrains me in how I work and how I accomplish certain tasks -- with no benefit. Neither Git or Mercurial do that. What Fossil can do, both Git and Mercurial can do better. So why would I choose Fossil?

They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated.

If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool. I get value out of it and am not meaningfully impacted by the issues you have with it in practice.

I'm not a salesman and it's free software, so do what makes sense to you.

>They're not outlandish statements, you are frustrated.

As an expert on myself, I must disagree.

>If you don't get any benefit out of a tool, then don't use that tool.

I don't use it. But I think you need to remember what I replied to, as that's an ill-placed sentiment in this thread.

> You can't do patches.

You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar.

> You can't rebase.

You have alternatives. The work philosophy is different, though.

> You can't rename files.

False.

>You can create bundles and submit them for approval. Very similar.

Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do.

>The work philosophy is different, though.

That's an apology if I've ever seen one. Again, not the same.

>False.

Rename a file. Then try to merge. Tell me what happens.

>Bundles do not have anywhere near the same flexibility and nuanced capacity that patches do.

Interesting. That's basically what the people who suggested bundles (a Hg feature) said about patches.

I've used both as appropriate. Handy that Fossil has both.