[Swift-devel] Re: [Swift-commit] r4363 - branches

[Sarah Kenny]

they should get it directly from tags instead of svn co
https://svn.ci.uchicago.edu/svn/vdl2/branches/release-0.92 swift ?

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Mihael Hategan <hategan at mcs.anl.gov>wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 12:09 -0700, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> > alrighty, so, does this seem right to everyone?
>
> Almost. The instructions for checking out the source code are not quite
> right.
> >
> > http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/~skenny/swift/downloads/index.php
> >
> > i'm doing a run thru of the site tester now building from
> > tags/release-0.92.1 as a sanity test and assuming all goes well that's
> > what i will use to build the binary.
> >
> > let me know if this sounds ok or if i'm missing anything here.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Mihael Hategan <hategan at mcs.anl.gov>
> > wrote:
> >         On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 -0700, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> >         > and should the binary then still be called 0.92 rather than
> >         0.92.1 ?
> >
> >
> >         The binary would be called 0.92.1.
> >         >
> >         > being that 0.92 had such a substantial flaw and a warning
> >         was posted
> >         > on the site, it seems to me that we'd want to make it clear
> >         (to users)
> >         > that this is a new version/release by naming it
> >         0.92.1...does tagging
> >         > adequately solve this?
> >
> >
> >         Tagging doesn't solve that. Tagging is there so that we can
> >         have some
> >         label in SVN that matches the packages that we release as
> >         opposed to
> >         having to track a specific revision in the branch.
> >         >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/swift-devel/attachments/20110413/3dd27df1/attachment.html>