Why SQLite Does Not Use Git
I haven&#x27;t used Fossil, but just a comment on some of that page, in the order they&#x27;re presented:<p>1. It&#x27;s unclear to me what he means. Yes git doesn&#x27;t store anything like a doubly linked list of commits, and thus finding the &quot;next&quot; commit is more expensive, but you can do this with &#x27;git log --reverse &lt;commit&gt;..&#x27;, and it&#x27;s really snappy on sqlite.git.<p>It&#x27;s much slower on larger repositories, but git could relatively easily grow the ability to maintain such a reverse index on the side to speed this up.<p>2. Yeah a lot of the index etc. is complex, but I wonder how something like &quot;git add -p&quot; works in Fossil. I assume not at all. Is there a way to incrementally &quot;stage&quot; merge conflicts? Much of that complexity comes with significant advantages.<p>3. This is complaining about two unrelated things. One is that GitHub by default isn&#x27;t showing something like &#x27;git log --graph&#x27; output, the other is that he&#x27;s assuming that git treats the &quot;master&quot; branch magically.<p>Yeah GitHub and other viewers could grow some ability to special-case the main branch and say &quot;..and this was merged into &#x27;master&#x27;&quot; at the top of that page, but in any case all the same info exists in git as well, so it&#x27;s just a complaint about a specific web UI.