Hi Kristis, On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 21:15, Kristis Makris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Yavor, > > This is a big mistake on my part. I'm sorry. > > I thought that the status resolution work needed was already included in > the patches from Elias and Uditha. I was not aware of the fact that > bz_lock_tables was causing problems. > > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 18:09 +0200, Yavor Nikolov wrote: > > Sorry for the wrong subject from initial report of this issue. > > > > Seems bugzilla 3.2+ removed bz_lock_tables in it's code and is > > handling database changes in > > bz_start_transaction/bz_commit_transaction blocks. > > > > I can see some earlier complains for this problem.. but it has been > > announced that v0.26.17 is supporting status changes for bugzilla 3.4 > > now. > > Do you recall where ? I can't find it any report related to > bz_lock_tables in the issue-tracker. > Google for scmbug and bz_lock_tables may help for this. In particular I see following is related: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bug-tracking.scmbug.user/2106 However Alex's patch has just commented these calls to bz_lock_tables. I'm not sure what would be the best way to handle this - but at least seems a better idea to add bz_start_transaction/bz_commit_transaction as replacement of removed bz_lock*/bz_unlock* statements. Something similar has been mentioned here: http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=guy.pyrzak%40gmail.com&passw=&list=developers&brief=on&func=archive-get-part&extra=200703/31 Regards, Yavor
_______________________________________________ scmbug-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
