On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Wesley W. Terpstra <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wesley@terpstra.ca" target="_blank">wesley@terpstra.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I received a FTBFS (fails to build from source) debian bug #560623 [1] today, which turns out to be a patch compatibility bug already fixed by Matthew (r7369). (BTW, what the hell?! patch is as old and stable a unix tool as they come; what genius changed its behaviour?)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Agreed that changing patch's behavior is quite bizarre.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In the process of fixing this I noticed that svn browsing is broken [2].</blockquote><div><br>Just a couple days ago, Stephen disabled viewsvn.cgi because something was causing many copies to be spawned and overload the machine. We wanted to check the apache logs before turning it back on.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Before I upload a new version of the debian package and go through the hassle of getting all the ports to build cleanly again (they are currenly all green! [3]), I thought I'd also address bug #<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559014" target="_blank">559014</a> [4], which is a complaint about the version number I picked for the MLton snapshot; I called it 20091107.<br>
<br>Since MLton doesn't use version numbers, I can't really call it 1.99+r7369 to make it clear it's a prerelease snapshot of version 2.0. However, my current version name is a bad choice because it implies that 20091107 was an "official" release. The best I can propose is 20091211+r7369. Suggestions / complaints?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Would something as simple as "20091211pre+r7369" be sufficiently indicative of a pre-release?<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Of course, if those two regressions on osx were fixed, maybe we'd have an official release and the point would be moot. BTW, a colleague of mine reports<span dir="ltr"> everything works under Snow Leopard except the regressions world5 and real.</span> A small fix was needed which I'll commit shortly.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I think I've got the two performance regressions I mentioned last time solved. I only know of the world5 regression failure on Leopard (x86-darwin); I wasn't sure that it was a failure on Snow Leopard (x86-darwin). What did you need to fix?<br>
<br></div></div>