Message-ID: <51196F51.3080007@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:23:13 +0000
From: David Stacey <drstacey@tiscali.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: sqlite3-3.7.15.1-1 packages to test
References: <announce.5029275C.4040009@etr-usa.com>	<1353415897.5592.4.camel@YAAKOV04> <50AD20AD.2090908@etr-usa.com>	<878v9udble.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <50EC902B.9030407@etr-usa.com>	<50FBB773.90102@tiscali.co.uk> <87r4lgm8un.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <50FBEA89.2030701@tiscali.co.uk> <5112DCB2.8090802@tiscali.co.uk> <51195129.5020907@etr-usa.com>
In-Reply-To: <51195129.5020907@etr-usa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.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