Preparing pijul-0.11.0


#21

It’s “funny” because one of my patches for rc2 fixes this issue.

You might want to use a pijul built with master (or maybe it is what you tried to do, and I misundertood).


#22

no, no, I was using 0.10.1.
Now I’ll try building latest master, but in the last few days I had to stop using it because of a “error: nodb” error. I’ll report back.


#23

I confirm I can’t use pull with pijul from latest master:

pijul pull https://nest.pijul.com/pijul_org/pijul                                    
error: NoDb
pijul pull https://nest.pijul.com/pijul_org/pijul --from-branch testing --to-branch=testing
error: NoDb

No backtrace available. Status, record, add work.


#24

It is an internal issue due to the partial clone feature. Normally you can fix it easily, for instance with pijul record. Calling this command, even if it does nothing visible, should do the trick

–lthms

  1. Mai 2018 15:07 de pijul@discoursemail.com:

#25

wow, magic!
I’ll play around with testing then, and report any bugs if found.


#26

Doesn’t always work. On a repo which needed the “record” trick to solve “error: nodb”, trying dist BEFORE using the trick the operation aborts with the error but doesn’t delete the bad archive.

  1. find a repo which needs the “record” trick to solve error: nodb. Probably any created with 0.10?
  2. BEFORE using the trick, run pijul dist
  3. exits in error, doesn’t delete the empty archive it created.

#27

I wonder if it is related to the presence of try! at various places within the pijul and libpijul souce code. Otherwise, I don’t understand from where it comes from.

Edit: Actually no, it was me, I was not trying to remove the good file D: it should be fixed now.

Thanks for the report, @yory! If you find anything else, don’t hesitate, it is really appreciate a lot.


#28

I can confirm it was fixed. Thank’you!


#29

For your information, the current pijul upstream is in a strange state right now, because @pmeunier and I caused the “first real-world conflict since the new patch format”, and uncover several bugs in the process.

We will keep you up-to-date regarding the resolution of the situation.

On the bride sight, it is less bugs inside pijul code base, and more test cases!


#30

Okay, so the trouble are behind us, thanks to @pmeunier expertise. The bugs should be fixed, and new test cases have been added to avoid regression (which is great).

If you pulled any patches yesterday (Sunday 13), then you should clone the repository again. Unrecord does not work quite well in this situation, because one patch was ill-formed.

Sorry for the inconvenience.


#31

@lthms, do you think we’re far from Pijul 0.11? I’d like to upgrade the Nest to use it, but I try not to work with development versions.


#32

I think we can. As far as I can tell, the “remaining issue” which I was considering blocking for releasing pijul-0.11 is gone, thanks to you. I will try to review the difference between the latest RC and the current state of master, update the changelog one more time, and propose a tag for the release.

I am currently working extensively on my PhD manuscript, so I don’t have as much time as at the end of April, but I will try to do it as soon as possible (probably tomorrow).

Is that okay with you?


#33

I didn’t mean to put any pressure on you! I was just curious. What you’re proposing is totally ok with me!


#34

So, as you might have noticed, it took me a bit more time than expected. I’ve been able to look into pijul again today, and I really think we can release a new version this week. I’ve tried @flobec this afternoon, it looks like it works great. I haven’t seen new tests about the two new interactive commands: it might worth adding them. I also wanted to bump several dependencies, and if we want to use the latest rand, we need to update Sanakirja as well (I have created two related discussion on the nest).

I am very sorry for my long silence. I have to send my manuscript September 1st, so I don’t think I will contribute a lot to pijul this summer. But I really want to help release pijul-0.11.


#35

@pmeunier could you have a look at sanakirja#10 and sanakirja#11, please? It would be awesome!