Hi,
If anyone would be able to review the unmerged changes on this branch
and/or give it the go ahead for merging, I'd appreciate it. I'd love to
see this make it into the next Fossil release, if possible.
Thanks,
Nick
___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossi
On 10/14/2016 12:14 PM, Ross Berteig wrote:
I think this is the first build and test I've done since the Win10
Anniversary Update imposed itself on me, and certainly the first since
this week's patch Tuesday. Something made the Windows Firewall
fussier, and I had to reassure it during bot
I also tried a build with VS2010 targeting Windows 64-bit. The resulting
fossil.exe does appear to be a 64-bit executable, and after some fussing
and remembering to run the tests from outside the fossil source tree,
passes all but one JSON test case. I built it for testing using minizip,
with J
On 10/14/2016 12:20 PM, Andy Bradford wrote:
Thus said Ross Berteig on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:14:03 -0700:
Something made the Windows Firewall fussier, and I had to reassure it
during both test suite runs that yes, it was ok to let fossil.exe do
something. The prompt came a long ways in to t
Thus said Ross Berteig on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:14:03 -0700:
> Something made the Windows Firewall fussier, and I had to reassure it
> during both test suite runs that yes, it was ok to let fossil.exe do
> something. The prompt came a long ways in to the suite, but I didn't
> check the prot fil
Built and tested on Win 10 Pro 64-bit, using 32-bit MinGW GCC 4.7.2
under MinGW MSYS bash.
Configured with zlib but no SSL, it built clean and passed all tests.
Configured with zlib, SSL, json, TH1, and TCL, it built clean and passed
all tests.
I think this is the first build and test I've d
Thus said "Andy Bradford" on 14 Oct 2016 10:14:20 -0600:
> I'm not sure what the unversioned failures are at this point.
The unversioned test failures were caused by the fact that I already had
a fossil server running on port 8080. This obviously didn't work out
because it was not the serv
Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:47:24 -0400:
> The final SQLite 3.15.0 is not checked into the Fossil trunk. Is it an
> appropriate time to release version 1.36 of Fossil?
I get the following test results on OpenBSD 5.8:
* Final results: 14 errors out of 34413 tests
* Consi
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:47:24 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> The final SQLite 3.15.0 is not checked into the Fossil trunk. Is it
> an appropriate time to release version 1.36 of Fossil?
>
Yay! I have no objections to a 1.36 release at this time.
___
foss
On 10/14/16, jungle Boogie wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone 7.1
>
> On Oct 14, 2016 7:47 AM, "Richard Hipp" wrote:
>>
>> The final SQLite 3.15.0 is not checked into the Fossil trunk. Is it
>> an appropriate time to release version 1.36 of Fossil?
>>
>
> SQLite is NOT checked in to fossil? Is it wort
Sent from my iPhone 7.1
On Oct 14, 2016 7:47 AM, "Richard Hipp" wrote:
>
> The final SQLite 3.15.0 is not checked into the Fossil trunk. Is it
> an appropriate time to release version 1.36 of Fossil?
>
SQLite is NOT checked in to fossil? Is it worth waiting?
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlit
The final SQLite 3.15.0 is not checked into the Fossil trunk. Is it
an appropriate time to release version 1.36 of Fossil?
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/
12 matches
Mail list logo
