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

[Wesley W. T. <we...@te...>]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 09:16:21AM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> 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?

Only in a branch. I have been fiddling with code to do what I think
necessary to fix lurker for some time. When I start integrating with the
lurker cvs, it will be as a branch; not as cvs/HEAD.

The fourth attempt at lurker's new database can be seen at:
	http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/lurker/project/
the third attempt at:
	http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/lurker/libtsl/
the second attempt:
	your version of lurker
the first attempt:
	0.1a
the zeroth attempt:
	written at a company where my non-compete clause has run out.
	... also where some friends and I developed lurker's interesting
	threading arrangement. I am amazed no one else has copied it yet.

The version which I am almost done (fifth attempt), is nice and simple, and
will be used in lurker 0.5 -> 1.0 is only available on my hard drive. :-)
... it uses a really spiffy data structure that I custom designed for
lurker. I probably should keep my mouth shut until I release it, but... the
words 'zero' and 'seek' come to mind when describing message imports. ;-)

> 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"? 

cvs/HEAD, or releases.

> 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. 

I intend to keep the transition to whatever lurker 1.0 is as ... compileable
and runnable. :-) However, this transition will be in a branch as noted
above. Once I start merging the new database with lurker -- this will mark
the begin of transition to 1.0. People testing this would be greatly
appriciated; however, DON'T run it on a public server. :-)

> 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?

I will probably do a 0.1g release in a week or three.

> 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.

Those backtraces are invaluable.

-- 
Wesley W. Terpstra <we...@te...>