Re: [Lurker-users] SIGSEGV in service.c (CVS 20030409)

[Federico S. I. <ji...@fr...>]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 04:36:41PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> Since that will take significant time, I will continue to maintain
> 0.1* for a while yet. :-)

Awesome, thanks. I'm curious, though, since you fix changes in CVS, will
you do drastic work in CVS as well? What are people like me supposed to
track if we need the corner cases fixed because we get hit by them, and
yet use the archives for "real life"? If CVS is decently stable (eg: I'm
willing to pay the price of the current instability if it means helping
you get to 1.0 faster and better) I'll be willing to use it. If you
intend to have it completely broken until you get to 1.0, maybe small
mini-releases can be made with the bugfixes only?

> Fixed in CVS. :-)

Thanks. You're really great at this.

> This is that message with the corrupt body again. First time the crash
> was from import, this was from someone viewing it.

Sigh... must be a pain dealing with the variety of messages out there,
and in C at that!

> I hope to keep as much of the current code as possible during
> transition, so it is important to keep nailing down corner-cases like
> this.

Ok then. I'll be running Lurker under gdb until we hit 1.0 so I can keep
sending you backtraces when things break. I'm sure you'll prefer
backtrace-equipped bug reports than me wailing that lurker keeps dying.
;)

Thank you again for your great work, Wesley. Even when 0.1f was broken
for quite awhile I couldn't get myself to try any other archiver out.
None of them had what I've grown to love in Lurker (the searching and
especially the mini-threaded paths). Cheers!

 --> Jijo

-- 
Federico Sevilla III  : http://jijo.free.net.ph      : When we speak of free
Network Administrator : The Leather Collection, Inc. : software we refer to
GnuPG Key ID          : 0x93B746BE                   : freedom, not price.