Re: [fossil-dev] Fossil 2.0 Beta

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Richard Hipp on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:35:56 -0500:

> All other  SHA1 hashes remain the  same. If you doubt  that assertion,
> you  can test  it by  running "fossil  test-integrity" or  "fossil all
> test-integrity".

On a side  note, it appears that test-integrity is  slightly slower than
previously (about 20 seconds):

$ fossil version
This is fossil version 1.37 [b88ef030a6] 2017-02-24 14:52:46 UTC
$ time fossil test-integrity 
skip phantom 35517 ab58aacfbe23fc2fe849eff53306daa9199a7f7f
skip phantom 35518 02d7c874c4c78c13d5c5fd0a0e80f6d069fc3214
skip phantom 35519 edf1bee5f2a3577138c6df087565fe5462d99926
skip phantom 35520 ee2d352b3e23c80eaf4bfa5465be546b12db6e1b
36357 non-phantom blobs (out of 36361 total) checked:  0 errors
low-level database integrity-check: ok
1m42.01s real 1m10.12s user 0m31.71s system

$ ./fossil version
This is fossil version 2.0 [6fc3bf94c7] 2017-03-03 13:49:25 UTC
$ time ./fossil test-integrity
skip phantom 35517 ab58aacfbe23fc2fe849eff53306daa9199a7f7f
skip phantom 35518 02d7c874c4c78c13d5c5fd0a0e80f6d069fc3214
skip phantom 35519 edf1bee5f2a3577138c6df087565fe5462d99926
skip phantom 35520 ee2d352b3e23c80eaf4bfa5465be546b12db6e1b
36357 non-phantom blobs (out of 36361 total) checked:  0 errors
low-level database integrity-check: ok
2m02.04s real 1m27.76s user 0m32.64s system

Andy
-- 
TAI64 timestamp: 400058b98ea9


___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev

Re: [fossil-dev] Fossil 2.0 Beta

[Warren Young]

On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> 
> On 3/1/17, Warren Young  wrote:
>> 
>> Is the server under really heavy load at the moment?  I’ve got a clone from
>> http://www.fossil-scm.org that’s been running for several minutes now.
>> Updates normally take just a few seconds here.
> 
> Load average is less than 10%.
> 
> Works fine from here.  Could it be the network on your end?

I changed the URL with “fossil sync” to use https:// and it cleared right up.  
I doubt it’s actually and HTTP vs HTTPS thing but it might matter that I 
reconnected to a new socket on a different TCP port number.
___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev

Re: [fossil-dev] Fossil 2.0 Beta

[Richard Hipp]

On 3/1/17, Warren Young  wrote:
>
> Is the server under really heavy load at the moment?  I’ve got a clone from
> http://www.fossil-scm.org that’s been running for several minutes now.
> Updates normally take just a few seconds here.

Load average is less than 10%.

Works fine from here.  Could it be the network on your end?

-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev

Re: [fossil-dev] Fossil 2.0 Beta

[Warren Young]

On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> 
> The trunk check-in of Fossil
> (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?c=trunk) is the release
> candidate for version 2.0.  I plan to do the version 2.0 release with
> 48 hours.  Please test it out, as you are able.

Is the server under really heavy load at the moment?  I’ve got a clone from 
http://www.fossil-scm.org that’s been running for several minutes now.  Updates 
normally take just a few seconds here.

> You will not notice any changes.

Will the header for the first row under Overview in /info pages change to show 
the actual algorithm in use?  E.g.

https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/32ba35f3b02d67c6

Have you considered an old request to just change this (and similar references) 
to “ID” so the actual algorithm in use is entirely hidden at the UI level?

I have no objection to your new /info page enhancement.  I’m just saying that I 
think “SHA1” vs “SHA3” is plumbing, not porcelain.
___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev