On 3/13/17, Stefan Bellon <sbel...@sbellon.de> wrote: > > When upgrading from 1.24 to 1.29 years ago, the output of "fossil > annotate" changed and broke all our scripts (and even some customer > databases). > > I expect even more incompatibilities when switching from 1.29 to 2.0 > and therefore this is nothing that can be done in a few minutes. > > We have to check for all the output of all fossil commands we use in > scripts whether they still produce the same output they did before. >
I'm a little confused. If you need to continue using Fossil 1.29 for text output compatibility, then why is it a problem that you cannot "fossil update" to the latest trunk? After all, you won't be using the latest trunk, right? Also: What can we do to help you move away from scripts that depend on the details of command-line output and toward something that is more likely to survive an update? What are your scripts doing? Would it be better to run SQL queries directly against the repository database? Are new fixed-output-format commands needed in Fossil to extract information that is important to scripts? -- 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
