From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - 2008-11-25 12:20:05
|
Please be informed that we forgot to tag the 0.0.11 release and that I'll be doing so in retrospect ASAP. (Ville, Mark, if you feel like doing it - be my guest: I won't be able to do it earlier than tomorrow night). Bye, Erik. |
From: Mark E. <ev...@pa...> - 2008-11-26 06:51:09
|
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote: > Please be informed that we forgot to tag the 0.0.11 release and that > I'll be doing so in retrospect ASAP. > > (Ville, Mark, if you feel like doing it - be my guest: I won't be able > to do it earlier than tomorrow night). Revision 11360 has been tagged as [abcl-0.0.11][1]. [1]: http://trac.common-lisp.net/armedbear/changeset/11399 -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now." |
From: Ville V. <vil...@gm...> - 2008-11-26 07:47:02
|
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: > Revision 11360 has been tagged as [abcl-0.0.11][1]. That raised my eyebrow.. r11360 is the import of the scripting branch. The commit message says r11360 (well, actually it says r113960 which doesn't exist :), but the tag itself says it's a copy of trunk version r11356. Most puzzling. :) |
From: Mark E. <ev...@pa...> - 2008-11-26 08:53:08
|
Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: >> Revision 11360 has been tagged as [abcl-0.0.11][1]. > > That raised my eyebrow.. r11360 is the import of the scripting branch. I wasn't entirely sure of which revision to tag, so I specified r11360 as the version of the repository that certainly contained a good version of ABCL 0.0.11, as it was the first revision post Oct 19 (the day that Erik announced the release), and r11360 made a copy of 'trunk' which I inferred as Erik's implicit sanction as the natural "0.0.11" tag revision. > The commit > message says r11360 (well, actually it says r113960 which doesn't exist :) I made a mistake in the comment for the commit which unfortunately I don't think can be edited without a fair amount of pain from what I remember (I think one has to dump the repository, replay all the commits up until the "bad" comment, etc.) >, but > the tag itself says it's a copy of trunk version r11356. Most puzzling. :) r11356 corresponds to the last change in the repository that was underneath the "trunk" which is what I intended by specifying r11360 as the version to tag as 'abcl-0.0.11'. This is what I presumed from looking at the svn logs/Trac timeline but ensured from using r11360 as the peg revision to copy. My logic might be a bit convoluted here, but as far as I know the 'abcl-0-0-11' tag faithfully corresponds to what Erik released as ABCL-0.0.11. -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now." |
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - 2008-11-26 10:09:35
|
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: > Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Mark Evenson <ev...@pa...> wrote: >>> >>> Revision 11360 has been tagged as [abcl-0.0.11][1]. >> >> That raised my eyebrow.. r11360 is the import of the scripting branch. > > I wasn't entirely sure of which revision to tag, so I specified r11360 as > the version of the repository that certainly contained a good version of > ABCL 0.0.11, as it was the first revision post Oct 19 (the day that Erik > announced the release), and r11360 made a copy of 'trunk' which I inferred > as Erik's implicit sanction as the natural "0.0.11" tag revision. > >> The commit >> message says r11360 (well, actually it says r113960 which doesn't exist :) > > I made a mistake in the comment for the commit which unfortunately I don't > think can be edited without a fair amount of pain from what I remember (I > think one has to dump the repository, replay all the commits up until the > "bad" comment, etc.) > >> , but >> the tag itself says it's a copy of trunk version r11356. Most puzzling. :) > > r11356 corresponds to the last change in the repository that was underneath > the "trunk" which is what I intended by specifying r11360 as the version to > tag as 'abcl-0.0.11'. This is what I presumed from looking at the svn > logs/Trac timeline but ensured from using r11360 as the peg revision to > copy. > > My logic might be a bit convoluted here, but as far as I know the > 'abcl-0-0-11' tag faithfully corresponds to what Erik released as > ABCL-0.0.11. The effect at least is what I intended. Sorry to have been vague about it. After your mails I went to Trac and found that r11356 is indeed the magic number. Bye, Erik. |