On 18 June 2013 02:15, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
There is a fresh build of Fossil for windows at:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/tmp/fossil-20130614-win.zip
downloaded, but the binary inside the .zip doesn't run on my win32
system. (Could it be a 64-bit binary? dependency walker hints
On 18 June 2013 11:06, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote:
For the time being I will park the faulty/suspect repo somewhere, and
create a new repo to work on.
Ok, did that - created new repo from scratch and added files, then
tried cloning with new fossil-version on both server- and
FYI, dumpbin confirms that it's a 64-bit executable.
Pete
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.comwrote:
On 18 June 2013 02:15, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
There is a fresh build of Fossil for windows at:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.comwrote:
Rather than hijack that thread...
Regarding 1.26...
How up-to-date is our feature list page?
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/changes.wiki
i've added what i'm aware of, but didn't dig through all
Rather than hijack that thread...
Regarding 1.26...
How up-to-date is our feature list page?
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/changes.wiki
i've added what i'm aware of, but didn't dig through all of the commits.
@Devs: please add your contributions since the 1.25 release to
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
Thanks for the updates Stephan. I'm studying the diffs now (fossil diff
--tk -c 50 --from release). And looking at
http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?n=1000y=cia=releaset=trunkto see
what else has changed. I've
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Test errors (possibly non-critical?):
i'm not sure how to interpret this one:
[stephan@host:~/cvs/fossil/FREL]$ ./fossil test-name-changes --debug
b120bc8b262ac 374920b20944b
-- Changes for (13484) b120bc8b262ac -
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
pass or fail?
Not sure if this is new or not, but valgrind says (with some patience),
that rebuild is leaking:
==23411== LEAK SUMMARY:
==23411==definitely lost: 420 bytes in 5 blocks
==23411==indirectly lost: 0
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
Thanks for the updates Stephan. I'm studying the diffs now (fossil diff
--tk -c 50 --from release). And looking at
http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?n=1000y=cia=releaset=trunkto see
what else has changed. I've
Would it be possible to include my rather small patch in the release? My
contributor agreement has been sent in, and the patch is about as small as
they come.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Laurens Van Houtven _...@lvh.io wrote:
Would it be possible to include my rather small patch in the release? My
contributor agreement has been sent in, and the patch is about as small as
they come.
I cannot find you patch in the mail archives. Are you sure
I attempted to, but perhaps I messed it up in some way. Message repeated
below.
---
Hi,
I've written a pretty small patch to make fossil serve files with extension
mp4 as video/mp4. This in accordance with RFC 4337[1].
The RFC says:
1. if neither audio nor video, use application/mp4
2. for
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
As far as my 64-bit system is concerned, it looks good to me. My 4 year
old 32-bit netbook, though, is still having a long conversation with
valgrind (from which i expect the same results).
The netbook says, after its
The 1.26 release archive is tagged as 20130618210923 yet the extracted
folder is fossil-src-20130618210323. Any chance a new tarball can be
rolled? Saves me from having to put a work around in for the OpenBSD
port I maintain.
Thanks.
--
James Turner
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, James Turner ja...@calminferno.net wrote:
The 1.26 release archive is tagged as 20130618210923 yet the extracted
folder is fossil-src-20130618210323. Any chance a new tarball can be
rolled? Saves me from having to put a work around in for the OpenBSD
port I
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:43:38PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, James Turner ja...@calminferno.net wrote:
The 1.26 release archive is tagged as 20130618210923 yet the extracted
folder is fossil-src-20130618210323. Any chance a new tarball can be
rolled?
Trying to run the Windows version in Windows XP SP3 gives the error Not a
valid Win32 application.
--
o-= Marcelo =-o
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to run the Windows version in Windows XP SP3 gives the error Not a
valid Win32 application.
Ugh. I compiled it using a VS2012 x86 Native Tools Command Prompt on
Win8. Anybody have a guess what might have gone
Maybe:
Project-Application Properties-Compile
Set Target CPU to *x86*
https://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2012/10/08/10357555.aspx?Redirected=true
t+
og
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Richie Adler
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:25 PM, og ogil...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe:
Project-Application Properties-Compile
Set Target CPU to *x86*
The build was done from the *Command Line Prompt* not from a MSVC GUI, so
there is no Project-Application Properties-Compile menu. If I update to
On 6/18/2013 5:53 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com
mailto:richiead...@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to run the Windows version in Windows XP SP3 gives the
error Not a
valid Win32 application.
Ugh. I compiled it using a
On 6/18/2013 3:51 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote:
On 18 June 2013 11:06, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote:
For the time being I will park the faulty/suspect repo somewhere, and
create a new repo to work on.
Ok, did that - created new repo from scratch and added files, then
tried cloning
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Edward Berner e...@bernerfam.com wrote:
I was able to reproduce a similar behavior, and I think it has to do with
the size of those files.
I created a 200 MB file and a 150 MB file using dd from /dev/arandom. I
added those to a new repository on an OpenBSD
23 matches
Mail list logo
