On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Ross Berteig <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I second the notion of a separate json extra command to signal that the > additional work really is wanted. > > I have no strong opinions about the structure of the payload, other than > the segregation of extras from other changes. Perhaps I'd even go so far as > to imagine json status, json changes, and json extras where status doesn't > include anything more than an indication of whether changes are known to > exist, and the two commands changes and extras are analogous to their CLI > namesakes. Interestingly, the changes and status commands are internally the same code except for the header info output by status. So whether or not to split status/changes into two commands or have as option to the status command, e.g. (json status --changes), is up for discussion. i won't be able to work on it until the weekend, so bikeshedding season is open until then. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
