I updated from build 9270 to build 9275 last night, and it just crashes on launch every time, even if I opt not to restore windows.
I'm running 10.7.4 on a 2009 Mac Pro (4-core).
Crashlog: http://pastebin.com/3j47akHY
Reverting to build 9270 leaves me with a working editor once more.
Does anybody have any ideas what could be causing this? Unfortunately, it dies before showing the changelog, so I have no clues from that (I assume it's in the repo somewhere, but I haven't found where yet :)
Thanks
On Aug 13, 2012, at 11:50 AM, John Yeates textmate2@warmvomit.co.uk wrote:
Does anybody have any ideas what could be causing this? Unfortunately, it dies before showing the changelog, so I have no clues from that (I assume it's in the repo somewhere, but I haven't found where yet :)
I am guessing you are also affected by this: https://github.com/textmate/textmate/commit/7f3818fb4c5f8ab9ed8fca0d47b2f95b...
Do you use GlimmerBlocker or another proxy?
For the records, build 9276 has been pushed as a replacement nightly build with the mentioned commit reverted.
On Aug 13, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Allan Odgaard mailinglist@textmate.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 2012, at 11:50 AM, John Yeates textmate2@warmvomit.co.uk wrote:
Does anybody have any ideas what could be causing this? Unfortunately, it dies before showing the changelog, so I have no clues from that (I assume it's in the repo somewhere, but I haven't found where yet :)
I am guessing you are also affected by this: https://github.com/textmate/textmate/commit/7f3818fb4c5f8ab9ed8fca0d47b2f95b...
Do you use GlimmerBlocker or another proxy?
On Monday August 13 2012, Allan Odgaard mailinglist@textmate.org wrote:
I am guessing you are also affected by this:https://github.com/textmate/textmate/commit/7f3818fb4c5f8ab9ed8fca0d47b2f95b...
Do you use GlimmerBlocker or another proxy?
Yes, that was it — thanks!
Would you prefer things like this to be reported through GitHub in the future, BTW? (It was still sufficiently new for TM2 that I forgot it was an option :)
On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:56 AM, John Yeates wrote:
Would you prefer things like this to be reported through GitHub in the future, BTW? (It was still sufficiently new for TM2 that I forgot it was an option :)
I much prefer (real) email!
The issue tracker at GitHub is akin to forcing me to use a webmail client with all the inefficiencies that comes with working in a web UI dealing with lots of data.
If you look at closed issues https://github.com/textmate/textmate/issues?page=1&state=closed you can quickly calculate that roughly every second hour some user “force” me to go to a web interface and click around to indicate that the user’s problem/question has been resolved. Sure, I could just ignore it or delay it, and then have an online inbox overflowing and only accessible 25 items at a time…
Just my two cents…
For the records, the GitHub team does marvellous work, and it’s no rant against their issue tracker in particular, their implementation is quite good and have limited email integration, it’s just a general observation.
Perhaps instead of the current email integration the GitHub team could actually do an IMAP interface to the issues, so I wasn’t locked into their (web) app.
Not a tease but did you report the issue to them (GitHub team)? They can't know else…
Cheers
JB that's not affiliated w/ GitHub
Le 14 Aug 2012 à 14:08, Allan Odgaard mailinglist@textmate.org a écrit :
On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:56 AM, John Yeates wrote:
Would you prefer things like this to be reported through GitHub in the future, BTW? (It was still sufficiently new for TM2 that I forgot it was an option :)
I much prefer (real) email!
The issue tracker at GitHub is akin to forcing me to use a webmail client with all the inefficiencies that comes with working in a web UI dealing with lots of data.
If you look at closed issues https://github.com/textmate/textmate/issues?page=1&state=closed you can quickly calculate that roughly every second hour some user “force” me to go to a web interface and click around to indicate that the user’s problem/question has been resolved. Sure, I could just ignore it or delay it, and then have an online inbox overflowing and only accessible 25 items at a time…
Just my two cents…
For the records, the GitHub team does marvellous work, and it’s no rant against their issue tracker in particular, their implementation is quite good and have limited email integration, it’s just a general observation.
Perhaps instead of the current email integration the GitHub team could actually do an IMAP interface to the issues, so I wasn’t locked into their (web) app.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
On Aug 14, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Jean-Baptiste Karageuzian karageuzian.jb@gmail.com wrote:
Not a tease but did you report the issue to them (GitHub team)? They can't know else…
What’s there to report? That I generally prefer native apps over web apps? I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to learn that ;)
Or were you thinking about my open-ended spur of the moment suggestion of providing an IMAP interface? Cause that idea needs to be fleshed out a bit before it can be presented as an actual suggestion, that said, I’m pursuing the idea of it (i.e. giving thoughts to how one could go about it, there is some preexisting experience with how GMail mapped the concept of labels to IMAP, but I don’t think it was overly successful, ideally one would use the IMAP tagging feature/extension, but MUA support for this is close to non-existing).
-
Allan Odgaard -
Jean-Baptiste Karageuzian -
John Yeates