> How does fossil do compared to git? Tim here. Regarding large objects, Fossil doesn't fare much better. Git has some plugins such as the large-file storage option that allows you to refer to a single external source of large binary blobs without having to pull them all down locally, and I've not seen any similar plugin for Fossil. That said, I can only report based on the experience I've heard from others. All my git & fossil repos are largely just text/code so they are comparatively tiny. Outside of large files, both have similar functionality and performance, but slightly differing philosophies. Fossil tends to treat history as sacred, actively making it difficult to rebase a series of changes (you can do it by creating a new branch and then manually cherry-picking the commits from the original dev branch) which grates against me sometimes. But I also love that fossil comes with a built-in wiki & issue-tracker. That said, there's a lot more documentation out there for git, so it's what I tend to use by default. -tim _______________________________________________ Blinux-list mailing list Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list