Fossil vs GitBucket: What are the differences?

1. Hosting: Fossil comes with a built-in web interface for managing repositories, while GitBucket requires additional installation and setup of a separate web server like Apache or Nginx for hosting repositories.
2. Built-in Wiki: Fossil includes a built-in wiki system for documentation and notes, while GitBucket does not have a built-in wiki feature, requiring users to use external tools for documentation.
3. Ticketing System: Fossil provides an integrated ticketing system for issue tracking and project management, whereas GitBucket lacks this feature and relies on third-party integrations for issue management.
4. Merge Workflow: Fossil follows an "autosync" merge strategy by default, automatically pushing changes to the remote repository, while GitBucket uses a more manual approach, requiring developers to manually push and pull changes.
5. Accessibility: Fossil is designed to be a self-contained, single executable file, making it easier to set up and use compared to GitBucket, which requires multiple components and dependencies for installation and configuration.
6. Community Support: GitBucket has a larger community and ecosystem, with more plugins and integrations available, while Fossil has a smaller user base and fewer third-party extensions.

In Summary, Fossil and GitBucket differ in hosting capabilities, built-in features like wikis and ticketing systems, merge workflows, accessibility, and community support.