Fossil integrates all the aspect of source control into one: source versioning, issue tracking, wikis/documentation, and a self-contained web inferface which is actually pretty nice.
The timeline of fossil's web view has IMHO one of the best visualizations currently[1] when working with multiple branches. It's roughly what gitk/github network graph/git log --graph does, except it's so much better and understandable I wished git developers would catch on.
My current problem with fossil is that it's not so efficient when it comes with large repositories, and I actually like git's staging area. Otherwise, the entire scm is solid, and the UI (web and cli) is definitely superior to git and mercurial.
BugsEverywhere, in constrast, just uses the current repository as a storage for bugs. You can use BugsEverywhere with git, mercurial, bzr, darcs... even with "cvs" if you wanted to.
The timeline of fossil's web view has IMHO one of the best visualizations currently[1] when working with multiple branches. It's roughly what gitk/github network graph/git log --graph does, except it's so much better and understandable I wished git developers would catch on.
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=trunk&nd&c=...
My current problem with fossil is that it's not so efficient when it comes with large repositories, and I actually like git's staging area. Otherwise, the entire scm is solid, and the UI (web and cli) is definitely superior to git and mercurial.
BugsEverywhere, in constrast, just uses the current repository as a storage for bugs. You can use BugsEverywhere with git, mercurial, bzr, darcs... even with "cvs" if you wanted to.