e-users-bounces at mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im Auftrag von Filip Navara
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 08. Oktober 2015 15:55
> An: sqlite-dev at mailinglists.sqlite.org
> Cc: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Betreff: Re: [sqlite] [sqlite-dev] SQLite version 3.8.12 enters testing
>
> Wou
Would it be possible to include FTS5 in the amalgamation?
Thanks,
Filip Navara
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The release checklist for version 3.8.12
> (https://www.sqlite.org/checklists/3081200/index) is now active. The
> 3.8.12 release will occur when the checklist
An: sqlite-dev at mailinglists.sqlite.org
Cc: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Betreff: Re: [sqlite] [sqlite-dev] SQLite version 3.8.12 enters testing
Would it be possible to include FTS5 in the amalgamation?
Thanks,
Filip Navara
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The rele
On 7 October 2015 at 17:39, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 10/7/15, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > ? would you elaborate what? is the
> > benefit of using x.y.z versioning scheme if so many new features come to
> > the "z" release?
>
> That's the versioning scheme that has been used by SQLite for 15
>
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 10/7/15, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > ? would you elaborate what? is the
> > benefit of using x.y.z versioning scheme if so many new features come to
> > the "z" release?
>
> [...] The community seems to want the second number (current 8)
? ?
On 7 October 2015 at 16:42, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The release checklist for version 3.8.12
> (https://www.sqlite.org/checklists/3081200/index) is now active. The
> 3.8.12 release will occur when the checklist goes all-green.
>
> A preliminary change log for version 3.8.12 can be seen at
>
On 7 Oct 2015, at 4:39pm, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The community seems to want the second number (current 8) to increment
> every time a new feature is added to SQLite. I will take your request
> under advisement. Realize, however, that had the current preferred
> number scheme been used for
"Scott Robison" wrote...
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7 October 2015 at 17:39, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/7/15, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>>> > ? would you elaborate what? is the
>>> > benefit of using x.y.z versioning scheme if so many new
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>
>
> On 7 October 2015 at 17:39, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/15, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> > ? would you elaborate what? is the
>> > benefit of using x.y.z versioning scheme if so many new features come to
>> > the "z" release?
>>
On 10/7/15, Simon Slavin wrote:
> (B) The product itself is called SQLite3 so the '3' has to be fixed. Major
> rewrites to SQLite to, for example, introduce WAL mode, can't change the
> '3'.
The "3" is the file format. SQLite1 and SQLite2 used different and
incompatible file formats. SQLite
On 10/7/15, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> ? would you elaborate what? is the
> benefit of using x.y.z versioning scheme if so many new features come to
> the "z" release?
That's the versioning scheme that has been used by SQLite for 15
years. Back when it was adopted, 15 years ago, it was certainly
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Dominique Devienne
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On 10/7/15, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > ? would you elaborate what? is the
> > > benefit of using x.y.z versioning scheme if so many new features come
> to
> > > the "z"
12 matches
Mail list logo
