On 8 June 2011 02:05, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/7/11 5:40 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 7 June 2011 18:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2011 12:28 PM, sebb wrote:
> Q: I saw some projects are using svn for releases instead
> copying the artifacts trough the ftp. Are using this as well
> or
On 6/7/11 5:40 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 7 June 2011 18:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
>> On 06/07/2011 12:28 PM, sebb wrote:
Q: I saw some projects are using svn for releases instead
copying the artifacts trough the ftp. Are using this as well
or the [1] is still valid?
>>> AFAIK, that has to b
On 7 June 2011 18:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 12:28 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> Q: I saw some projects are using svn for releases instead
>>> copying the artifacts trough the ftp. Are using this as well
>>> or the [1] is still valid?
>>
>> AFAIK, that has to be set up through infrastructure
On 06/07/2011 12:28 PM, sebb wrote:
Q: I saw some projects are using svn for releases instead
copying the artifacts trough the ftp. Are using this as well
or the [1] is still valid?
AFAIK, that has to be set up through infrastructure first.
Yep that was my understanding as well.
Seems like
On 7 June 2011 10:54, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's been few changes since 1.0.5 so I recon it's
> a good time to release a bug-fix/new-feature version.
+1
> I'll use the "standard" iterative RCx model with renaming
> a RCx tag if voted.
+1
> Q: I saw some projects are using svn for rel
Hi,
There's been few changes since 1.0.5 so I recon it's
a good time to release a bug-fix/new-feature version.
I'll use the "standard" iterative RCx model with renaming
a RCx tag if voted.
Q: I saw some projects are using svn for releases instead
copying the artifacts trough the ftp. Are using
