Those who are curious about why use Fossil SCM is this: You can carry it with you in the form of a .fossil file which is a portable database (SQLite).

I should start using Fossil more; seems like things are getting out of hand in an implicit way.

I mean... git repositories can be cloned. People that depend on libraries can vendor them, or outsource that job to someone else (like Google's go module cache / checksum database). Using git does not make your project vulnerable to the whims of Github, and it doesn't make your users vulnerable to the whims of Github.

Ultimately, people that get banned from a site usually complain about it because they want something the site offers that they can't build themselves. People can distribute the source code without Github's help; what they offer is nice, but not essential. The community is hard to clone, though; and the community is a great way to get pull requests, bug reports, manage permissions, setup CI sandboxes, etc. (It reminds me a lot of YouTubers complaining about YouTube. The reason they don't self-host videos is not because it's hard to put an mp4 file on a webserver and let people download it. The part they can't reproduce is YouTube's steady stream of viewers and advertiser relationships. That is why they whine when YouTube demonitizes a video, but they don't leave the platform -- YouTube has something that they can't make themselves. Github is similar, though in my opinion, a lot less important.)

> I mean... git repositories can be cloned. People that depend on libraries can vendor them, or outsource that job to someone else (like Google's go module cache / checksum database). Using git does not make your project vulnerable to the whims of Github, and it doesn't make your users vulnerable to the whims of Github.

The thing is that Fossil is not just the code source, it's the issues, wiki and all the information around. Basically a self-hosted GitHub, so you can take all information with you, not just the code.

Didn't know that fossil let you take everything. That's worth having.

> ...since you can always clone the entire repository.

how is that different than github?

It might be better to say that you can clone the project, including ex. issues, as a single thing, rather than just the "repo" of code

ahh. that's clear. thank you!

With GitHub, you are only cloning part of the repository -- you are missing the Wiki (which is a separate repository), Issues, Milestones, Release Artifacts, etc

The repository is just the code. All the other stuff is part of the project, not the repository.

You're right. Just getting the terminology wrong.

In Fossil it's all just part of the repository :-)

on an unrelated topic, any reason why http://chiselapp.com/ doesn't use HTTPS?

I see your homepage handles user signup data and it might expose your users to eavesdropping.

What advantage does fossil have over Git in this case?

The ability to clone the entire repository, not just the code base portion of it -- and thus make it available somewhere else with low effort. So all the issues, wiki articles, release artifacts could be re-homed (or even have multiple simultaneous homes).