> I think that the fact that fossil is a single executable is a *big* > selling point; changing to a situation where you need certain additional > outside-of-the-repo (.so) files to work properly with certain fossil > repos would be a mistake.
Again I agree with you 100%. But I am talking about aplications based on fossil which are not themselves fossil or even a version control system, two of which I am currently working on (for personal use). Having regular interfaces to core fossil would mean that when the fossil core code is upgraded I and others could simply incorporate the new code into our own projects without modification. If the core code has to be hacked, such integration would be more difficult and thus the resulting project more difficult to maintain. My own projects would then still be single executable files with no dependancy on outside files and so having the advantages of fossil ... but not being fossil. I am merely suggesting that, as fossil evolves, thought should be given to the fact that 3rd parties may wish to reuse or extend the code and mechanisms devised that would make this easier. -- Robert _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
