The Fossil distributed version control system
It&#x27;s not terribly difficult for me to track my issues, or a wiki, or even a static site alongside my source code just via plain text (and in fact I usually would prefer to). I can get the parent of a commit in Git, and if I can&#x27;t remember the specific command I can just add an alias. Git&#x27;s interface is hard to teach and unintuitive, but now that I know it, it&#x27;ll be initially a net loss in productivity for me to learn <i>anything</i> else even if it&#x27;s way more intuitive.<p>I guess what I&#x27;m getting at is that even if Fossil is better than Git, the problems it&#x27;s solving don&#x27;t seem to be particularly urgent to solve. Less complexity is good, but it would need to be <i>considerably</i> more elegant than Git to make me not want to use a VCS that&#x27;s basically standard now.<p>I don&#x27;t see anything in the FAQ, overview, or questions page where I&#x27;m thinking &quot;Oh, this is something I <i>couldn&#x27;t</i> do in basic Git.&quot; For a large organization I can see the benefits of simplifying, but as a developer I feel like I&#x27;m missing the hook.<p>Off the top of my head, Git improvements that I regularly do want:<p>- Large file support and binary file support. LFS exists, but is clunky and annoying to work with.<p>- Pushing&#x2F;pulling directly to someone else&#x27;s local repository (ie, if a remote goes down). This is always harder to do than I expect.<p>- Better octopus merging; once commits in git have multiple parents, there are sometimes unexpected complications that can arise in future merges.<p>Does Fossil solve any of those problems?