Re: [fossil-users] SQLITE_BUSY ?

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > I'm aware of the sync protocol. My point is that all clusters should > already exist on the public master repository as part of other sync > operations and I would strongly argue that this is the case that should > be optimised for. It

Re: [fossil-users] SQLITE_BUSY ?

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:45:24PM -0400, Ron W wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:10:36PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: > > > >Out of curiosity; why aren't pulls 100% read-only on the se

Re: [fossil-users] SQLITE_BUSY ?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:10:36PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 6/17/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: > > >Out of curiosity; why aren't pulls 100% read-only on the server? > > > > > > > The server might decide to create a new cluster

Re: [fossil-users] How to fix repo that has checkin with wrong date

I did a small investigation on my issue. It is a 'rebuild' time... During 'manifest_crosslink()' a record with wrong date of manifest is inserted into 'event' table and at the same time into 'time_fudge' table, because manifest date is far future. On some calls to 'manifest_crosslink()', a contr