X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_BD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Trace: 840158780/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$THROTTLED_DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.68.108.253/None/drstacey AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 79.68.108.253 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: drstacey AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBADpuGVFPRGz9/2dsb2JhbAANN71Jg3SDEgEBAQMBOEAGCwsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQGICK0Pkx2OY02CXQOcAo1uDQ Message-ID: <51196F51.3080007@tiscali.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:23:13 +0000 From: David Stacey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: sqlite3-3.7.15.1-1 packages to test References: <1353415897 DOT 5592 DOT 4 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04> <50AD20AD DOT 2090908 AT etr-usa DOT com> <878v9udble DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <50EC902B DOT 9030407 AT etr-usa DOT com> <50FBB773 DOT 90102 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <87r4lgm8un DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <50FBEA89 DOT 2030701 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <5112DCB2 DOT 8090802 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <51195129 DOT 5020907 AT etr-usa DOT com> In-Reply-To: <51195129.5020907@etr-usa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 11/02/13 20:14, Warren Young wrote: > On 2/6/2013 15:44, David Stacey wrote: >> I've run four sets of tests, with sqlite3 3.7.13 and >> 3.7.15, both with and without Warren's patch. The bottom line is that >> Subversion appears to function identically in all four cases, and there >> was no significant difference in runtime performance (i.e. the time >> taken to run the tests). > > I'm inferring from "four tests" that this result is for the fsfs case > only, and that bdb is still assumed to have a problem. Correct. I never got the 'bdb' tests to complete. Personally, I put that down to a BerkleyDB problem rather than any issue with SQLite - I may be wrong though. > Since this report of yours on Jan 9, I've been meaning to try and set > up the famous SQLite test suite on a Cygwin box and set it to > grinding, to exonerate the new .15.1 builds. But if we think it now > doesn't matter... I only tested SQLite through Subversion, so the level of testing I have given SQLite is only that part that is exercised by Subversion. If you think that this tests a significant proportion of SQLite then it might not be worth getting the SQLite test suite to work under Cygwin. Conversely, if you think Subversion uses only a minority of the SQLite functionality then it is probably worth continuing your work on the test suite. It depends on how much of SQLite you think is exercised by Subversion. > .15.2 is out, so do you want me to build a new set of packages for you > to test and potentially GTG? Ooo go on then - on the understanding that this is a one-off and I'm not running hours of tests for each SQLite release ;-) More seriously though, I can only test SQLite through Subversion, and I have no feel for how much of SQLite that would be testing. If you're happy with that then send me a URL. Dave. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple