One of the neat things about repos in Fossil (the DVCS by drh of SQLite fame) is that they have a built-in wiki and issue tracker whose contents are version controlled along with everything else in a project's repo. The Fossil executable also has a built-in web server that presents a web interface for working with the repo, including the issue tracker and wiki.

In short, if you have a project's Fossil repo, you can work on everything locally, then push source, wiki, and issue tracker changes to a central repo at your leisure.

Just to note, Github Wiki is git repo, so it you want to backup the data, branch, etc, you can push pull and everything else with any Github Wiki.

Github issues aren't however.

But you can't view GitHub Wiki in browser without some preprocessing. In Fossil, I just do

    $ fossil ui

And view (and edit) a copy of the whole project website, including wiki, tickets, history, interface for diffs, etc. in my browser.

The problem with fossil is that it's not git. However it would indeed be nice if someone built a distributed github on top of git.

how does fossil do versioning of the issue tracker? i tried using a setup like that for a while, with ditz as the issue tracker. it turned out to be really inconvenient to have my issues versioned along with my code as part of the same repo - i want to navigate around in my code's history and branch layout with the issue tracker conceptually being an entirely separate repo that always points to HEAD unless i explicitly go scroll back in it.

Fossil doesn't track issues along with source code, unlike some scripts for bug tracking on top of git. While Fossil stores tickets in the same repository with source code, with the same basic format, tickets are separate entities and are not connected to the source code itself.

You can read more about it here: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/bugtheory...

Yup. I wanted to do some coding before heading off, but I guess that's off the table now.

What? That's the complete opposite of what OP was saying.

You don't need github to be online to work with your code or even your repositories so long as you haven't gone and thrown all your digital eggs in the same basket (i.e. as long as you have other remotes or at least local copies of your repositories).

I think kmfrk is implying his place of employment doesn't use git.

I don't think so, because it's GitHub that's down and I think kmfrk would have mentioned it if his other service was coincidentally down at the same time. I think what kmfrk meant is that he can't operate without GitHub's issues. It isn't ideal but it's understandable.

Exactly. I for one don't have a photographic memory of my issues.