title: What is the typical workflow with fossil, especially compared to that of git?
body: <p>For git, "<a href="https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A successful Git branching model</a>" gives great advice.</p>
  
  <p>I want to give <a href="https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fossil</a> a shot, and it seems to be very compatible with git (the most striking difference (of SCM features) I noticed so far is the denial of <code>git-rebase</code>'s functionality, partly mitigated by the <a href="https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/shunning.wiki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">shunning</a> feature). So can the git workflow be simply adapted 1:1 or is a different workflow more recommendable? E.g. how can the additional features of fossil (integrated Issue Tracker and Wiki) be integrated?</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="From: A successful Git branching model"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/WGO0b.png" alt=""></a><br>
  <sub>(source: <a href="http://nvie.com/img/2009/12/Screen-shot-2009-12-24-at-11.32.03.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nvie.com</a>)</sub>  </p>