On Sep 14, 2012, at 21:02 , Bill Burdick wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Michael L. Barrow <mlbar...@barrow.me>wrote: > >> On 9/14/12 11:53 AM, Bill Burdick wrote: >> >>> Rest assured that even if "weird" features like rebasing were to >>> "pollute" Fossil, no one would force you to use them :)
But who would prevent a cow worker from using them? >>> But the size and complexity of the resulting application which is known >> for being well-engineered could suffer... > > > True for a generic, unknown feature, maybe, but not for rebasing, I think. > Rebasing could be implemented without changing the codebase at all, > just using the fossil command in a script. A lot of extensions could be > done as external scripts -- both Fossil and Git are very easy to extend, > that way. They both have good architectures; Fossil's is SQL and Git's is > NoSQL :). Actually... No. Fossil, with it's monolithic single-app design, is relatively hard to both extend and embed. Also, seeing how Natacha's attempts at providing a much-requested feature were ignored, it can be hard to influence. This can be seen as both curse and blessing, depending if what you need aligns with what is/will be there. But don't say it's easy to extend by writing a separate client or ipc-ing to this one... Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
