This is an additional comment on the thread starting with
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-10/msg00086.html
Recently I was bitten again by this RCS 5.8 bug after I
failed to keep RCS at version 5.7 during a Cygwin update.
The failure mechanism is described in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwi
I
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Ryan Johnson writes:
>> So in other words, a misguided performance optimization [1] that
>> almost certainly has little measurable impact on performance [2] has
>> introduced a silent data corruption bug (or tickled a latent one
>> somewhere
Ryan Johnson writes:
> So in other words, a misguided performance optimization [1] that
> almost certainly has little measurable impact on performance [2] has
> introduced a silent data corruption bug (or tickled a latent one
> somewhere else). Lovely.
It is not the performance optimization that i
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:37:26AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> On 10/9/2013 01:05, Don Hatch wrote:
> >
> >if I forget to set the variable, or set it wrong,
> >or someone else doesn't know about the variable and runs into the bug,
> >then corruption happens and work is irretrievably lost.
>
> How
On 09/10/2013 9:37 AM, Warren Young wrote:
On 10/9/2013 01:05, Don Hatch wrote:
Would it be possible to simply declare 5.8 DOA
The Cygwin package system allows one to mark 5.8-1 as obsolete, but I
don't know if it can be told "and downgrade to 5.7-11".
If not, can we make a 5.9 that's iden
On 08/10/2013 7:48 PM, Warren Young wrote:
On 10/8/2013 04:22, Don Hatch wrote:
Checking in a text file of size >= 256k
corrupts the rcs file, irretrievably losing most of the contents
It's documented in the rcs NEWS file:
- Env var RCS_MEM_LIMIT controls stdio threshold.
For spee
On 10/9/2013 01:05, Don Hatch wrote:
if I forget to set the variable, or set it wrong,
or someone else doesn't know about the variable and runs into the bug,
then corruption happens and work is irretrievably lost.
How is this more difficult than what you're already doing, manually
rolling bac
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:30:40PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 18:30, Don Hatch wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:48:53PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >>On 10/8/2013 04:22, Don Hatch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Checking in a text file of size >= 256k
> >>>corrupts the rcs file, irretrievably
On 10/8/2013 20:08, Gary Johnson wrote:
There was a discussion around March 27, 2012, about another change
in the behavior of RCS between 5.7 and 5.8. It appears that someone
decided to make some sweeping "improvements" to RCS and broke a few
things along the way.
GNU rcs 5.7 was released in
On 2013-10-08, Warren Young wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 18:30, Don Hatch wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:48:53PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >>On 10/8/2013 04:22, Don Hatch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Checking in a text file of size >= 256k
> >>>corrupts the rcs file, irretrievably losing most of the content
On 10/8/2013 18:30, Don Hatch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:48:53PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
On 10/8/2013 04:22, Don Hatch wrote:
Checking in a text file of size >= 256k
corrupts the rcs file, irretrievably losing most of the contents
It's documented in the rcs NEWS file:
That quote
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:48:53PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 04:22, Don Hatch wrote:
> >
> >Checking in a text file of size >= 256k
> >corrupts the rcs file, irretrievably losing most of the contents
>
> It's documented in the rcs NEWS file:
>
> - Env var RCS_MEM_LIMIT control
On 10/8/2013 04:22, Don Hatch wrote:
Checking in a text file of size >= 256k
corrupts the rcs file, irretrievably losing most of the contents
It's documented in the rcs NEWS file:
- Env var RCS_MEM_LIMIT controls stdio threshold.
For speed, RCS uses memory-based routines for files
13 matches
Mail list logo
