surprised by beta

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

surprised by beta

scott-268
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

Edward L. Fox
On 5/8/07, scott <[hidden email]> 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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

Robert Lee-7
Edward L. Fox wrote:

> On 5/8/07, scott <[hidden email]> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

scott-268
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 12:04, you wrote:

> Edward L. Fox wrote:
> > On 5/8/07, scott <[hidden email]> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

Bram Moolenaar
In reply to this post by scott-268

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 -- [hidden email] -- 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    ///
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

Robert Lee-7
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

Stefano Zacchiroli-2
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?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

Robert Lee-7
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

scott-268
In reply to this post by Bram Moolenaar
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

A.J.Mechelynck
scott wrote:

> 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
>

from a recent thread on (IIRC) vim-dev, I'd guess "conary" and "conaryrecipe"
or maybe "conaryRecipe".


Best regards,
Tony.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
222. You send more than 20 personal e-mails a day.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

Edward L. Fox
In reply to this post by scott-268
On 5/8/07, scott <[hidden email]> 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~
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: surprised by beta

scott-268
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 21:29, you wrote:

> On 5/8/07, scott <[hidden email]> 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