Try closer to 40. It may be a small number compared to the amount of people who download Fossil but I believe it to be a representative number.
So yes, I'm calling this an "overwhelming majority". You can stick your head in the sand if you want but this is a pretty clear cut case of: Software is lacking, there is room for improvement, a majority desire improvement. This kind of stagnation over something that is clearly a needed improvement is likely to make me walk away from Fossil. On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Michael McDaniel <fos...@autosys.us> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0500, Joshua Paine wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 11:46 -0800, Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene wrote: > > > If the feature were put in wouldn't it just be "people with old fossil > > > needing to update"? > > > > Yes, but... > > > > > I'm not sure I get why there's talk of "custom fossil". This is a > > > feature that a overwhelming majority want. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Let us please keep a context when using loaded phrases such as > > "overwhelming majority want". > > I believe the context for the phrase is a straw poll which > was taken by approximately twenty people who subscribe > to this mailing list. Likely there are more people > than myself who subscribe and did not vote. > > My unsupported-by-evidence belief is that there are > magnitudes more people who use fossil than the twenty > or so votes in the straw poll. I doubt that we can > accurately extrapolate all users' sentiments from > that poll. A download counter at fossil-scm.org > may provide a sense of how much fossil is used (of > course, each download does not necessarily indicate > a new user or users). > > > The current fossil wiki and embedded documentation are > fine by me. If people want to add to their own "stuff", > they have that capability. > > I most especially would want never to see, e.g. javascript > as a mandatory part of using fossil. Many scripting languages, > and javascript particularly, are great holes for inserting > code to compromise a machine via the web browser. > > I prefer my source control management system to present > as few risks as possible for code corruption, undesired > distribution, or compromise of my users' machines when > using the SCM. No doubt I am not alone with that sentiment. > > > ~Michael > > > > > > But it's a feature that DRH said some time ago on the fossil site that > > he considered and rejected, and since he has stayed out of this > > conversation, I conclude that he's sticking to his decision or at best > > will reconsider only if some working code appears. > > > > If one were to implement markdown or some other more complete text > > formatting language in C, DRH might still not be willing to include it, > > so that route means hoping DRH will change his mind, or settling for a > > custom version of fossil. > > > > -- > > Joshua Paine > > LetterBlock: Web applications built with joy > > http://letterblock.com/ > > 301-576-1920 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > fossil-users mailing list > > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > -- > Michael McDaniel > Portland, Oregon, USA > http://trip.autosys.us > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
