-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Young
On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Tony Papadimitriou <to...@acm.org> wrote:
My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the
Python 2.7 vs Python 3.x one.
[all irrelevant Python analysis removed]
I was referring to the fact that Python is divided into two communities with
no foreseeable deadline for the discontinuance of Python 2.7 in favor of
3.x.
Those loyal to 2.7 and those loyal to 3.x (like myself). But regardless of
which group one belong to, one still needs to keep two installations to cope
with the various applications or libraries depending on whether those are
written for Python 2.7 or 3.x
Having two fossils (which is how I understood the plan), one for each case
(SHA1 and SHA3) may lead to a similar situation. Why?
For example, if I keep my own repos in SHA3 (which I'm for BTW), but I also
have to interact with 3rd party sites (like chiselapp) some of which may
choose to remain with SHA1 compatible, I would have to keep two different
fossils to cope with each case. Which means I need to remember where to use
what.
And, having to remember which version to use depending on the other side
being compatible or not, will be a practical nuisance.
drh has already said the new versions will warn you when you’re about to
run into a conflict.
A warning may tell me that I'm using the wrong one, but I would still have
to try it first before I get the warning. This is annoying. You see now,
if I want to access a git repo, I use git. But if I want to access a fossil
repo I will have doubt as to whether to use fossil 2 or fossil 2.1 until
after I use one and either get lucky or be warned to use the other version.
Even my open check-outs all over my disk. Which one I opened with 2 and
which with 2.1?
Would it not be possible to have a single version that simply keeps an
extra table with the SHA3 and the presence of the table alone will
determine which way to go?
Certainly. But every binary configuration option potentially doubles the
size of the test space. Every existing test has to run in all possible
configurations.
So, who will do that work, and why?
I’m not asking why you want the work done, I’m asking why that person would
do it for you, if it is not you doing the work for your own benefit. What
itch is that person scratching?
I believe DRH asked for feedback. And that was my feedback. Whether it is
agreeable with you is irrelevant. I am not a fossil developer and do not
plan to become one.
If fossil developers do not care for non-developer feedback they shouldn't
ask for it. Or, if by providing feedback I'm somehow bound to implement it,
I should be told about it not to waste my time.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
