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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---