On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Isaac Jurado <dipto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry but I find this a bit confusing. If you want to offer a > library where programs can link into, what difference does it make by > assuming it will have a small and concrete set of users? That's a fair question. My _assumption_ is that fossil's user base would not be one who is affected by binary incompatibility problems, for a couple reasons: a) the vast majority won't be directly using the library, but will be using the binary b) the number of users is small compared to, e.g., git. c) the preferred embedding approach (IMO) should be an "amalgamation build" (like sqlite does), which basically gets rid of binary compatibility problems. d) after this restructuring/rewrite, i expect more services to be more readily available over network interfaces (which don't have binary compatibility problems, just data format compatibility). @All: i really appreciate the continued feedback. The Google Doc has had 1-5 users viewing it almost full-time since yesterday. (i cannot see who they are with the exception of those who have explicit write access - all others show up as anonymous.) -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
