[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry for the confusion.
No problem.
For what it's worth, I am also curious as to the final form of the
VM opcode transformation. The number of opcodes generated by the various
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bill KING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A colleague brought up a very good point. At least for the first few
>> revisions, is the old engine/code still going to be available until the
>> new engine code base settles down?
>>
>>
>
> You can always pull the old
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:55:42AM -0600, Fred Williams wrote:
> >Which means that if the major version number changes,
> > then it'll be for marketing purposes.
>
> Well seeing how SQLite is FREE, it does its own "marketing" with one
> word, so to speak. Therefore I doubt
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:29 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Next Version of SQLite
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:46:03PM -0600, Rick Langschultz wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:46:03PM -0600, Rick Langschultz wrote:
> I was wondering what would constitute the creation of SQLite 4.0?
IMO major implementation details changes are not necessarily a good
rationale for bumping the major version number, not from a user's p.o.v.
The authors might
Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry for the confusion.
>
> No problem.
>
> For what it's worth, I am also curious as to the final form of the
> VM opcode transformation. The number of opcodes generated by the various
> SQL
Bill KING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A colleague brought up a very good point. At least for the first few
> revisions, is the old engine/code still going to be available until the
> new engine code base settles down?
>
You can always pull the old code frm CVS and run it against
the newer
this was a true complement and nothing else.
P Kishor wrote:
On 1/13/08, Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are people on this mailing list (ex: Joe Wilson) who appear
to read every line of every change that we make to SQLite,
--- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion.
No problem.
For what it's worth, I am also curious as to the final form of the
VM opcode transformation. The number of opcodes generated by the various
SQL statements seems to be roughly the same as the old scheme. At
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rick Langschultz wrote:
> I was wondering what would constitute the creation of SQLite 4.0?
An incompatible API, or significant behaviour changes.
> Since the VDBE is being revamped I would consider this a pretty big
> revamp of the SQLite code.
A colleague brought up a very good point. At least for the first few
revisions, is the old engine/code still going to be available until the
new engine code base settles down? (via #defines maybe?). It would lead
towards a good chance of comparison between the two engines too for people.
D.
At 8:46 PM -0600 1/13/08, Rick Langschultz wrote:
I was wondering what would constitute the creation of SQLite 4.0?
Since the VDBE is being revamped I would consider this a pretty big
revamp of the SQLite code. I am looking forward to testing this out
new engine out.
I also wanted to know
I was wondering what would constitute the creation of SQLite 4.0?
Since the VDBE is being revamped I would consider this a pretty big
revamp of the SQLite code. I am looking forward to testing this out
new engine out.
I also wanted to know what the difference between stack based and
On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Gerry Snyder wrote:
Joe Wilson wrote:
--- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are people on this mailing list (ex: Joe Wilson) who appear
to read every line of every change that we make to SQLite, within
minutes of making them, and complain if
On 1/13/08, Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are people on this mailing list (ex: Joe Wilson) who appear
> > to read every line of every change that we make to SQLite, within
> > minutes of making them, and complain if we so much as
Joe Wilson wrote:
--- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are people on this mailing list (ex: Joe Wilson) who appear
to read every line of every change that we make to SQLite, within
minutes of making them, and complain if we so much as misspell a
word in a comment. And I
--- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are people on this mailing list (ex: Joe Wilson) who appear
> to read every line of every change that we make to SQLite, within
> minutes of making them, and complain if we so much as misspell a
> word in a comment. And I haven't heard a
On Jan 13, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Marco Bambini wrote:
What will be the main benefits of the new virtual machine?
Optimizations such as common subexpression elimination
and moving subexpressions outside of inner loops will become
much easier. The code generator will, in general, be easier to
On Jan 13, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Darren Duncan wrote:
I would think something like that is worthy of a 3.6.0 version
number. Not just a minor version increase that would be more
suitable for minor
changes or bugfixes.
I agree with Darren that
Hipp wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
Hey all,
I was wondering when you plan on releasing the next version of
SQLite.
Mozilla is currently using 3.5.4, but that does not include some
OS/2
fixes that were checked in after the release of 3.5.4. Instead of
patching our
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Darren Duncan wrote:
I would think something like that is worthy of a 3.6.0 version number.
Not just a minor version increase that would be more suitable for minor
changes or bugfixes.
I agree with Darren that massive changes to the core of the system should
be
At 9:07 PM -0500 1/12/08, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
In case you haven't been watching the timeline
(http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/timeline) we are in the middle
of some major changes. The virtual machine inside of SQLite
is being transformed from a stack-based machine into a
register-based machine.
On Jan 12, 2008 9:07 PM, D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In case you haven't been watching the timeline
> (http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/timeline) we are in the middle
> of some major changes. The virtual machine inside of SQLite
> is being transformed from a stack-based machine into
On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
Hey all,
I was wondering when you plan on releasing the next version of SQLite.
Mozilla is currently using 3.5.4, but that does not include some OS/2
fixes that were checked in after the release of 3.5.4. Instead of
patching our local copy
Hey all,
I was wondering when you plan on releasing the next version of SQLite.
Mozilla is currently using 3.5.4, but that does not include some OS/2
fixes that were checked in after the release of 3.5.4. Instead of
patching our local copy of sqlite, I'd like to use a release version
25 matches
Mail list logo
