"Fossil has never guaranteed specific output for any given command, ...~ The output of any and all commands is subject to change without notice between any given versions. As a general rule, whoever hacks the feature determines the output format. i would go so far as to say that Fossil's output has always been essentially unusable for reliable scripting purposes (and some of that (but not this particular bit) is my fault)." ~Stephan Beal<https://plus.google.com/u/0/104981852298046595282?prsrc=4>
It didn't take long to realize this when attempting to automate fossil. :( It is refreshing to read it so plainly now. I guess the library interface is the target moving forward instead of forcing standardized output? Human interfacing should be a quaint memory. Thanks for fossil! On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Stefan Bellon <sbel...@sbellon.de> wrote: > >> >> > The username was therefore removed from the primary display in order >> > to reduce the amount of clutter and to make the output easier for >> > humans to read. >> >> Was this discussed on the mailing list and I missed it? Or was this >> just a decision by the developers themselves? >> >> > We will take your email as a feature request to add the username back >> > in as a run-time option. >> > > I remember asking. But I can't locate the message right now. Maybe it > was a conversation in a chatroom or something. > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > > _______________________________________________ > 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
