Re: surprised by beta
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 21:29, you wrote: On 5/8/07, scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me i am not asking any questions here, it's more like i'm warning those who may prefer to stay with a stable version Maybe you'll be surprised again today... Don't simply svn up. Take care~ oh don't worry -- i am definitely in wait til the dust settles mode and i'll be reading up on svn switch in the immediate future thank you edward sc
Re: surprised by beta
Edward L. Fox wrote: On 5/8/07, scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me i am not asking any questions here, it's more like i'm warning those who may prefer to stay with a stable version No, there won't be any tags, branches here, every thing is just going linearly, giggling. I just stumbled upon the svn update to disaster myself. Maybe its time to start getting a bit serious about project management? To the svn maintainer: The best practice is for the repository root to look something like this: /trunk (mirror of CVS, as usual) /tags (contains 7.0/ and 7.1a/ folders -- obviously these folders are static) /branches (possibly used for contribs such as patches that didn't make it into trunk (Bram's version) yet) To anyone else afflicted: To downgrade back to 7.0-stable, just do an svn update -r NNN where NNN is the revision you want to downgrade to. Check the logs for the exact revision, I don't know off hand. Cheers, -Robert
Re: surprised by beta
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 12:04, you wrote: Edward L. Fox wrote: On 5/8/07, scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me i am not asking any questions here, it's more like i'm warning those who may prefer to stay with a stable version No, there won't be any tags, branches here, every thing is just going linearly, giggling. I just stumbled upon the svn update to disaster myself. Maybe its time to start getting a bit serious about project management? To the svn maintainer: The best practice is for the repository root to look something like this: /trunk (mirror of CVS, as usual) /tags (contains 7.0/ and 7.1a/ folders -- obviously these folders are static) /branches (possibly used for contribs such as patches that didn't make it into trunk (Bram's version) yet) To anyone else afflicted: To downgrade back to 7.0-stable, just do an svn update -r NNN where NNN is the revision you want to downgrade to. Check the logs for the exact revision, I don't know off hand. Cheers, -Robert the last stable one i had was 7.0.236 -- how would you specify that? not sure i need to, the fixes to filetype.vim were trivial -- a couple of patches only partly applied left '' and '' in it sc
Re: surprised by beta
Mr Toothpik wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me What errors? -- How many light bulbs does it take to change a person? /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org///
Re: surprised by beta
Bram Moolenaar wrote: Mr Toothpik wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me What errors? Bram, The SVN Repos has conflict markers left in the file filetype.vim, effectively causing syntax errors. This issue is specific to the SVN repository (CVS/FTP users unaffected). I think a conflict occurred when the 7.1a patch 1 was merged in, and that conflict was never resolved by the SVN maintainer. This conflict can be trivially fixed be removing the conflict markers (, and ==). I didn't take a close look at the issue though. -Robert
Re: surprised by beta
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:50:36PM -0500, Robert Lee wrote: The SVN Repos has conflict markers left in the file filetype.vim, Sorry for the silly question, but the answer is not clear to me from your text: is your working copy that has conflict markers or the last committed version in the repository which has been committed without removing conflict markers? -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time
Re: surprised by beta
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:50:36PM -0500, Robert Lee wrote: The SVN Repos has conflict markers left in the file filetype.vim, Sorry for the silly question, but the answer is not clear to me from your text: is your working copy that has conflict markers or the last committed version in the repository which has been committed without removing conflict markers? I assumed the repository as I make no local changes to my checkout and didn't get any errors back from svn update. I ran the update yesterday and got r263. Everything compiled smooth, but I got errors on startup. I did an svn update -r 260 without thinking much of it (I thought maybe I compiled wrong -- and maybe I did). Revision 260 is what I was running before I did the update yesterday and is running again now without a hitch. To be honest, I never investigated the issue enough to know the exact problem, but whatever it was, it was either caused by me and is unrelated to Scott's issue, or is in the repository somewhere between r260 and r263. Based on the specific information provided by Scott, I assumed that there are markers left in the file in the repository. To check for myself, I just did a fresh checkout into a new folder of r263 and I see no markers there, so maybe I did compile wrong after all. The diff of 262:263 is gigantic at over 2mb (Bram, you've been busy!), so I don't know if I want to pour over it too much more than I have already. Scott: Do you still have the version of filetype.vim with the markers in it? I overwrote the r263 checkout I had trouble with :(. By the way, to get out of 7.1a.001 and back to 7.0.243 (which I assume is what you wanted to begin with), just use: svn update -r 261 and recompile. -Robert
Re: surprised by beta
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 15:32, you wrote: Mr Toothpik wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me What errors? i'm sorry bram, i didn't write them down, i didn't save the buggy 'filetype.vim', i just fixed it -- my bad -- but it was obvious there was an uncommitted patch or something -- there were and in it in two places they were syntax errors, and the comments around the were something to do with mine and r263, as memory serves they were replacing coronary with coronaryRespite or whatever that thread was sc
Re: surprised by beta
On 5/8/07, scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me i am not asking any questions here, it's more like i'm warning those who may prefer to stay with a stable version Maybe you'll be surprised again today... Don't simply svn up. Take care~
surprised by beta
i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me i am not asking any questions here, it's more like i'm warning those who may prefer to stay with a stable version
Re: surprised by beta
On 5/8/07, scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing after the errors it spews from /usr/local/share/vim/vim71a/filetype.vim when i run it -- apparently the install created the 71a directory for me i am not asking any questions here, it's more like i'm warning those who may prefer to stay with a stable version No, there won't be any tags, branches here, every thing is just going linearly, giggling.
