One of the things I've done is to *find* all of our changes and try to
separate them out from one another, so that should help. (I've created
a set of patch files which contain all the changes compared to vanilla
3.6.18.) Some of our changes had been sent upstream already, and of
those, some have now been merged. I don't know much about exactly why
we have all the changes we do though, so I'm not really the best one
to make a case for them in sending them upstream. Hopefully we can
track down the authors of these patches though, and ask them to push
them upstream.
--Mike
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM, spotrh <spo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/16/2009 04:07 PM, Mike Mammarella wrote:
>> FYI, I'm almost finished updating our (locally patched) SQLite to
>> version 3.6.18 instead of 3.6.1 that we have now; apparently 3.6.18
>> handles corruption much better than 3.6.1 does. (I am holding off
>> checking it in until I can run it through all the tests I can find to
>> make sure something won't break, but other than that it's ready.) I
>> don't know what effect it might have on this issue, but hopefully it
>> will be a good effect...
>
> This is good news, but FWIW, this is also a big reason why forking from
> established upstreams can lead to headaches.
>
> Is there any chance of reworking the chromium specific sqlite changes
> into something that upstream might merge?
>
> ~spot
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
