Again, that's not the same. Each commit in Fossil belongs to some branch, because its name and the fact of adding or removing a name is recorded directly in the commit artifact. In Git, branches are local references to commit (local in a sense that they are different for each repository instance, but can be synchronized). In Fossil, you can see which branch name the commit belongs to and if the parent commit had the same branch name or not; in Git branches are ephemeral entities which don't belong to commits, and once you delete the branch there's no way to know which name of the branch it belonged to.

http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wik...

In fact, I'd say Subversion, Git, and Fossil call different things "branches".

Note: I'm not saying that one way is superior to another, I'm just saying that Fossil does track branch history, but Git doesn't.