On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:26:35 +0100, Ramey, Christopher
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski <
On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:00 , Martin S. Weber wrote:
>> But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, not the latest
>> stables. That's the whole point: Fossil supports SQLite as a test
>> platform. SQLite stable has already been thoroughly vetted and
>> there is little point in testing it further. I want Fossil to run
>> latest SQLite on trunk to smoke out bugs early.
> ...but fossil in itself is a pretty awesome piece of software, that's
> by its users to be stable -- at least for releases.
I second this view, Fossil is definitely valuable on its own merit.
As such, its stable versions should not contain alpha-quality code from
SQLite alphas are more robust that "stables" of most other software
I'd be more concerned about the appearance of using a SQLite alpha in
Fossil. People have to have a great deal of faith in the quality and
stability of their VCS - using anything branded "alpha" even on the
insistence that it's better than most other stables could have a damaging
effect on Fossil's reputation.
were I not already using fossil in the first please, reading
that the considered DVCS uses alpha state software for it's database (of
all things...) would quite
probably put me off immediately. we are talking about a revision control
system, not a chat client (or what else).
and I really do believe fossil deserves to gain more following in the
"DVCS wars" which aim might be harmed by the proposed
personally, I can trust your statement (that the alphas are "robust"
(although a contradiction in terms)) and, therefore, do have no problem in
using fossil this way.
for newcomers the reaction very very probably will be different.
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
fossil-users mailing list