Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Ben Collver wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:48:06AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > > So we have a "branch-1.28" which is suppose to be for release. I'm > > wondering if anybody is actually using and testing it? > > I am using it for some personal projects, but

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:48:06AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > So we have a "branch-1.28" which is suppose to be for release. I'm > wondering if anybody is actually using and testing it? I am using it for some personal projects, but not 60K page views/day. No problems here yet. Cheers, -Ben __

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

Thus said Richard Hipp on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:48:06 -0500: > So we have a "branch-1.28" which is suppose to be for release. I'm > wondering if anybody is actually using and testing it? I've been using it since it was branched, although my limited use cannot come close to that of fossil-scm.or

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

So we have a "branch-1.28" which is suppose to be for release. I'm wondering if anybody is actually using and testing it? Note that the self-hosting Fossil website, as well as most other websites I control, like SQLite and Tcl/Tk, are running off of trunk and are thus getting real-world testing o

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/14 Jan Nijtmans : > And the last one which doesn't affect fossil > at all because fossil doesn't use fork(): > > > Branch "branch-1.28" currently contains SQLite 3.8.2 > with 5 additional bug-fixes: All the ones mention

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

Thus said Jan Nijtmans on Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:33:57 +0100: > And the last one which doesn't affect fossil > at all because fossil doesn't use fork(): > Technically it does use fork() for SSH sync operations but I don't

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/14 Mark Janssen : > With that commit, build still fails on sqlite.c: > > src/sqlite3.c:34515: warning: implicit declaration of function > 'winShmMutexHeld' Should be fixed now in "branch-1.28". In trunk it should be fixed as soon as a new SQLite amalgamation appears there. (Already fixed b

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/14 Mark Janssen : > BTW you are referring to old MinGW in your commit message. I have installed > mingw using the installer. How do you get a newer version? Don't use latest MinGW, it doesn't produce a working fossil, unless you patch MinGW's "dirent.h". See:

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/14 Joseph R. Justice : >(I also note from the timeline that > the prospective 1.28 does appear to have a release version of SQLite > embedded.) Actually, "branch-1.28" doesn't contain a release version of SQLite either, it contains the most stable version. This is almost the same, but not 1

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2014/1/13 Mark Janssen : > > I am not sure if this is an issue with my MinGW install, but latest trunk > > fails to build on MinGW. I think it's useful if the official release can > > also be built on MinGW. > >

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/13 Mark Janssen : > I am not sure if this is an issue with my MinGW install, but latest trunk > fails to build on MinGW. I think it's useful if the official release can > also be built on MinGW. Thanks! Jan Nijtmans

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: It has been a few months since the last official release of Fossil. I > wonder if we should consider publishing trunk as the official version 1.28? > I realize I am responding to this a little late, but, hey, as a non-code-contributing blowhar

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > It has been a few months since the last official release of Fossil. I > wonder if we should consider publishing trunk as the official version 1.28? > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > > ___

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2014/1/11 Richard Hipp : > > I don't think this should hinder the release. > > That's great news. So the valgrind error in the /tar page and > the two failing test-cases (which simply could be disabled) are > the only things which should be ha

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

I have a request. Can you guys do the official builds SSL-enabled? On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2014/1/11 Richard Hipp : > > I don't think this should hinder the release. > > That's great news. So the valgrind error in the /tar page and > the two failing test-cases (wh

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/11 Richard Hipp : > I don't think this should hinder the release. That's great news. So the valgrind error in the /tar page and the two failing test-cases (which simply could be disabled) are the only things which should be handled? I wouldn't know anything else. Thanks! Regards, Jan

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > I just now ran the valgrind test script, and there are issues. There is a > performance issue in timeline which seems to be related to Unhide. > The performance problem only comes up with WITHOUT ROWID tables are used (which happens onl

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> It has been a few months since the last official release of Fossil. I >> wonder if we should consider publishing trunk as the official version 1.28? >> > > i'm a bit late to the party

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > It has been a few months since the last official release of Fossil. I > wonder if we should consider publishing trunk as the official version 1.28? > i'm a bit late to the party (been off with a back injury since New Year's Eve), and don't r

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

Thus said Sergei Gavrikov on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:56:54 +0300: > * Failures: ... th1-setting-5 th1-setting-6 These two failures appear to be happening because they expect to find a setting (autosync == 1), but find something else. I believe this is because they operate on the current

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:25:04PM +0100, Jan Nijtmans wrote: [snip] > I compiled/ran it on Cygwin64, and "make test" ended with: > * Final result: 2 errors out of 18914 tests > * Failures: merge-utf-24-23 merge-utf-24-32 > [snip] Same thing here on OpenBSD 5.3 amd64... I've al

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

../configure --quiet&&make -s test|sed -ne '/Final result:/,$p' Cannot run this test within an open checkout Cannot run this test within an open checkout Cannot run this test within an open checkout * Final result: 2 errors out of 18915 tests * Failures: merge-utf-24-23 merge-ut

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Jan 10, 2014, at 15:29 , Richard Hipp wrote: > Thank you. But those antique test cases don't really matter that much. > (The test failures you are seeing are likely due to problems in the tests > themselves, not problems in Fossil, though we will verify this prior to > release.) Well, an err

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

Thank you. But those antique test cases don't really matter that much. (The test failures you are seeing are likely due to problems in the tests themselves, not problems in Fossil, though we will verify this prior to release.) I'm really interested in knowing whether or not the latest Fossil is w

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Jan 10, 2014, at 13:30 , Michai Ramakers wrote: > * End of utf: 2 errors so far ** > * Final result: 2 errors out of 18915 tests > * Failures: merge-utf-24-23 merge-utf-24-32 The same tests are failing on my machine: $ uname -a Darwin pc6.home 10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On 10 January 2014 13:25, Michai Ramakers wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:19:45AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >>Everybody: Please download, compile, and test the branch above. If there >>are no issues reported, it will become the official 1.28 release. > > for my info, when you say 'pleas

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:19:45AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > >Everybody: Please download, compile, and test the branch above. If there >are no issues reported, it will become the official 1.28 release. for my info, when you say 'please test', do you mean 'run the test-suite from the build a

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

more info: test-out @ http://phaeton.sdf-eu.org/fossil-1f10199a09724a50-test-out -M ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:19:45AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > > > 2014/1/9 Richard Hipp : > > > Jan - would you like to start the "branch-1.28" containing the SQLite > > 3.8.2 > > > release? > > > >

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

Am 09.01.2014 17:52, schrieb Remigiusz Modrzejewski: You do realize that "alpha" and "beta" are just words? With different quality assurance procedures in different projects, trying to use them as a gauge of anything else than releaser intent is misleading. Well, can I come in here? Maybe al

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:35:06 -0500 Richard Hipp wrote: > The fact that you feel this way (and that you probably represent the > views of many others who haven't bother to comment) shows that Jan is > correct, and that we really need to back up to the last version of > SQLite that is deemed "stable

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Jan 9, 2014, at 21:38 , Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: >> [*] The fact that Fossil is a DVCS doesn't ease my mind on this matter. All >> that means is that if there ever is a data loss, it will take some time to >> propagate among the copies, during which time I *may* catch it in time to >>

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

Am Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014, 13:15:30 schrieb Warren Young: > On 1/9/2014 07:31, Richard Hipp wrote: > > But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, > > So run sqlite.org with Fossil + SQLite alpha. Everyone is free to run > Fossil in any configuration they like. > > Please don't ask

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Jan 9, 2014, at 21:28 , Warren Young wrote: > On 1/9/2014 13:17, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >>SQLite alphas are more robust that "stables" of most other >>software projects. >> >> >>Are you asserting that no data-destroying bugs have ever appeared in a >>SQLite alpha? >>

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > I'm just uncomfortable being conscripted into someone else's alpha testing > program, especially when that test involves my work product, purposely > stored in a central location[*] for archival purposes. > The fact that you feel this way

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On 1/9/2014 13:17, Richard Hipp wrote: SQLite alphas are more robust that "stables" of most other software projects. Are you asserting that no data-destroying bugs have ever appeared in a SQLite alpha? Yes, I am. Are you aware of any that I missed? I'll take you a

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > > SQLite alphas are more robust that "stables" of most other software >> projects. >> > > Are you asserting that no data-destroying bugs have ever appeared in a > SQLite alpha? > Yes, I am. Are you aware of any that I missed? -- D. Rich

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On 1/9/2014 07:31, Richard Hipp wrote: But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, So run sqlite.org with Fossil + SQLite alpha. Everyone is free to run Fossil in any configuration they like. Please don't ask the rest of the Fossil user community to alpha-test SQLite for you, using

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

A while back when considering Fossil, I read that 'any' database could have been chosen in its design. This thread seems to contradict Fossil's published design theme? http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/tip/www/theory1.wiki Thoughts On The Design Of The Fossil DVCS: "We claim that Fossil is not

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:35 , sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > Took time to reply, cause I had to clean the coffee I spit up! > A released application should be considered stable and a conservative view > would say its libs should not contain alphas or betas. > The ease of compiling a bleeding edge Fossi

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/9 Richard Hipp : > Jan: tnx Your're welcome! > Everybody: Please download, compile, and test the branch above. If there > are no issues reported, it will become the official 1.28 release. I compiled/ran it on Cygwin64, and "make test" ended with: * Final result: 2 errors out of

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:55:17 +0100, Richard Hipp wrote: A consensus seems to be emerging that perception is more important that truth and hence the latest "release" of SQLite should be in the Fossil more important than truth? I think nobody said so and I would not agree to that "consensus".

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2014/1/9 Richard Hipp : > > Jan - would you like to start the "branch-1.28" containing the SQLite > 3.8.2 > > release? > > > Jan: tnx Everybody: Please download, compile, and tes

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/9 Richard Hipp : > Jan - would you like to start the "branch-1.28" containing the SQLite 3.8.2 > release? Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

A consensus seems to be emerging that perception is more important that truth and hence the latest "release" of SQLite should be in the Fossil release, rather than the latest trunk version of SQLite. I think that is silly, but I will yield to the consensus. Jan - would you like to start the "bran

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:26:35 +0100, Ramey, Christopher wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski < l...@maxnet.org.pl> wrote: On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:00 , Martin S. Weber wrote: >> But I want Fossil to follow the l

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

Took time to reply, cause I had to clean the coffee I spit up! A released application should be considered stable and a conservative view would say its libs should not contain alphas or betas. The ease of compiling a bleeding edge Fossil.exe is already in place for those wishing to gain the latest

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski < > l...@maxnet.org.pl> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:00 , Martin S. Weber wrote: >> >> >> But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, not the latest >> SQLite >> >> st

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:14 , Richard Hipp wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski > wrote: >> I second this view, Fossil is definitely valuable on its own merit. >> As such, its stable versions should not contain alpha-quality code from >> other projects. >> > > SQLite al

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:00 , Martin S. Weber wrote: > > >> But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, not the latest > SQLite > >> stables. That's the whole point: Fossil supports SQLite as a test > >> platform. SQLite

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:12:31PM +0100, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:00 , Martin S. Weber wrote: > > >> But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, not the latest SQLite > >> stables. That's the whole point: Fossil supports SQLite as a test > >> platform.

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Jan 9, 2014, at 16:00 , Martin S. Weber wrote: >> But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, not the latest SQLite >> stables. That's the whole point: Fossil supports SQLite as a test >> platform. SQLite stable has already been thoroughly vetted and tested and >> there is little

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:31:59AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > > > > > The latter has the advantage that no new Fossil binary > > has to be built when SQLite 3.8.3 is released. Fossil will > > always follow the latest stable SQLite automatica

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > > The latter has the advantage that no new Fossil binary > has to be built when SQLite 3.8.3 is released. Fossil will > always follow the latest stable SQLite automatically. > But I want Fossil to follow the latest SQLite alphas, not the late

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/9 Richard Hipp : > I view Fossil as supporting SQLite, not the other way around. (Remember, > that's why Fossil was original written!) As part of its role of supporting > SQLite, Fossil serves as a test platform for the latest SQLite alphas. For > that reason, I want Fossil 1.28 to have t

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2014/1/9 Richard Hipp : > > It has been a few months since the last official release of Fossil. I > > wonder if we should consider publishing trunk as the official version > 1.28? > > That's fine with me! I think Fossil's trunk is quite stabl

Re: [fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

2014/1/9 Richard Hipp : > It has been a few months since the last official release of Fossil. I > wonder if we should consider publishing trunk as the official version 1.28? That's fine with me! I think Fossil's trunk is quite stable now. One thing to consider would be which SQLite amalgamation

[fossil-users] Version 1.28 release?

It has been a few months since the last official release of Fossil. I wonder if we should consider publishing trunk as the official version 1.28? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://