Re: [fossil-users] 1.28 [6f1b5d6047] memory faults at `fossil search'
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:54 PM, j. van den hoff veedeeh...@googlemail.comwrote: version 1.28 [6f1b5d6047] gives me memory faults when doing something like `fossil search whatever' #search pattern does not matter ... when executing it on fossil's own timeline (i.e. in a checkout of the `fossil' source code). observed under MacOS 10.8.5. it seems to be related to the length of the timeline. `search' works just fine for smaller projects. can someone confirm this behaviour? Confirmed. Fixed now. On trunk and on the 1.28 branch. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] 1.28 [6f1b5d6047] memory faults at `fossil search'
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:01:07 +0100, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:54 PM, j. van den hoff veedeeh...@googlemail.comwrote: version 1.28 [6f1b5d6047] gives me memory faults when doing something like `fossil search whatever' #search pattern does not matter ... when executing it on fossil's own timeline (i.e. in a checkout of the `fossil' source code). observed under MacOS 10.8.5. it seems to be related to the length of the timeline. `search' works just fine for smaller projects. can someone confirm this behaviour? Confirmed. Fixed now. On trunk and on the 1.28 branch. thanks for this. question: the output of `fossil search' is not chronologically sorted. it should be in my view (top down, that is, from new to old just as the timeline). is this intended behaviour? another observation: I see strange hits in the search. e.g. (still for the fossil timeline) `fossil search abc' yields (upon others, obviously correct hits) a hit for rev. 94694585cd which seemingly is a commit with an empty commit message... looks like a bug to me. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] 1.28 [6f1b5d6047] memory faults at `fossil search'
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, j. van den hoff veedeeh...@googlemail.comwrote: thanks for this. question: the output of `fossil search' is not chronologically sorted. it should be in my view (top down, that is, from new to old just as the timeline). is this intended behaviour? another observation: I see strange hits in the search. e.g. (still for the fossil timeline) `fossil search abc' yields (upon others, obviously correct hits) a hit for rev. 94694585cd which seemingly is a commit with an empty commit message... looks like a bug to me. Yeah. The whole fossil search command was an idea that I tried several years ago. But I didn't spend enough time on it to drive it to completion. It needs attention. Do we have your contributor's agreement on file? Wanna help? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] 1.28 [6f1b5d6047] memory faults at `fossil search'
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 23:24:33 +0100, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, j. van den hoff veedeeh...@googlemail.comwrote: thanks for this. question: the output of `fossil search' is not chronologically sorted. it should be in my view (top down, that is, from new to old just as the timeline). is this intended behaviour? another observation: I see strange hits in the search. e.g. (still for the fossil timeline) `fossil search abc' yields (upon others, obviously correct hits) a hit for rev. 94694585cd which seemingly is a commit with an empty commit message... looks like a bug to me. Yeah. The whole fossil search command was an idea that I tried several years ago. But I didn't spend enough time on it to drive it to completion. It needs attention. Do we have your contributor's agreement on file? Wanna help? would if I could. but I'm afraid I'm not so much of a C programmer these days. for now, my 'solution would be to use `fossil timeline -n 0 -W 0 | grep pattern' ...). anyway, if you let me know where to look exactly I might give it a try if I get around to it. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
