Git vs. Fossil: what you should have done vs. what you did
This is obviously written by someone who&#x27;s never done any sort of review-based workflow.  Trying to review the &quot;what you did&quot; with all the random false starts, bug fixes, and who knows what, would be a nightmare; as would just reviewing the megapatch squashed from the end of the series.  Presenting the final result of your  &quot;feature branch&quot; as a series of self-contained changes in a logical order is the only sustainable model for a project of any size.<p>EDIT: I really wanted to like Fossil when I first heard about it -- having it based on SQLite (which is AWESOME), having issue tracker &#x2F; wiki &#x2F; whatever built in, etc. sounded great.  When I learned that it was basically incapable of rewriting your development branch into something more logical for someone to review because the author had never experienced a need for it I was quite disappointed.