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?
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.
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.
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.