On Jan 9, 2014, at 21:28 , Warren Young wrote: > On 1/9/2014 13:17, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >> SQLite alphas are more robust that "stables" of most other >> software projects. >> >> >> Are you asserting that no data-destroying bugs have ever appeared in a >> SQLite alpha? >> >> >> >> Yes, I am. Are you aware of any that I missed? > > I'll take you at your word. I'm not going to go trawl the SQLite changelog > to try and prove you wrong. > > I'm just uncomfortable being conscripted into someone else's alpha testing > program, especially when that test involves my work product, purposely stored > in a central location[*] for archival purposes.
Exactly my point about message sent by the "alpha" word. > [*] The fact that Fossil is a DVCS doesn't ease my mind on this matter. All > that means is that if there ever is a data loss, it will take some time to > propagate among the copies, during which time I *may* catch it in time to > recover, before the last copy gets tainted. The fact that Fossil is sort of write-only should. By design Fossil does not allow changing (thus destroying) any historical records. The only unwanted thing that can conceivably propagate is your CC number in a test file. If you are concerned by new software errors eating your code, simply don't update your central location. Fossil can easily interoperate in the distance of many versions. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
