Personally, I don't mind if you go for option (1). From the fossil timeline you mentioned ( http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?c=2012-11-21+16%3A28%3A03) it seems that it's not a big issue at all. I believe that all relevant comments can be easily edited by hand for all those who really need that.
The biggest advantages of (1) is minimal change to code and this means less work, less errors and smaller codebase. Cheers, Jacek 2012/11/23 Richard Hipp <[email protected]> > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:15 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think the cleanest solution is to extend the artifact format by adding >> optional mimetype fields to the >> end of C and J cards (solution 3a) >> >> Together with this let people choose at ticket/comment creation if its >> text (default) or html. >> >> For the backward compatibility: Do old fossil builds just ignore the >> additional fields? Then there is no problem. >> > > The artifact parser is very strict. Any extra fields, or even any extra > whitespace, at the end of a card causes the entire artifact to be rejected. > > >> >> This reminds me of another (maybe can of worms) idea: Why not let users >> add J fields per repository, they could be used to store file permissions >> etc, but are the responsibility of the repository, not the fossil >> executable. >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> fossil-users mailing list >> [email protected].**org <[email protected]> >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:**8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/** >> fossil-users<http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users> >> > > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
