On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jakob Eriksson <ja...@aurorasystems.eu>wrote:
> Of course you have no obligations but I think Fossil is getting more > popular. That means you will break more people's scripts and expectations. > Just something to consider. > There is tension between preserving backwards compatibility on the one hand and enhancing the interface on the other. Fossil is *always* careful to preserve backwards compatibility with the repository format and with the sync protocol. Those are non-negotiable items. So you can always be sure that newer versions of Fossil can read and write legacy repositories and can push and pull with legacy versions of Fossil. But there is wiggle room on the HMI. I try to avoid gratuitously changing things. But if an interface is significantly improved by a change, then that change can be accepted even if it breaks legacy scripts. Joel Bruick recently changed how the "fossil diff --tk" interface looks and works, for example. That change was disruptive to those of us who were used to the old format and required some revisions to scripts. But the enhanced "diff" HMI was so much better that everybody quickly adapted. Such is the price of progress. My opinion is that the "fossil annotate" command is *greatly* improved by omitting the username and adding the line number. Stefan Bellon has a different view of the matter, apparently. This happens. Anytime you change the HMI, you run the risk of disappointing someone. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
