e version and the generated version checked in),
>>> but there's no reason either should be shown so prominently, if at all.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the site
gt;>> But the site is versioned, in SVN and as a reflection of the SVN/release
>>> of the code base.
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> Original message
>>> From: Benedikt Ritter
>>> Date:01/03/2014 08:12 (GMT-05:00)
>>&g
t;> Original message ----
>> From: Benedikt Ritter
>> Date:01/03/2014 08:12 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [LANG] Snap-shot version in website header
>>
>> 2014/1/3 Henri Yandell
>>
>>> Yes we change the sit
riginal message
>> From: Benedikt Ritter
>> Date:01/03/2014 08:12 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [LANG] Snap-shot version in website header
>>
>> 2014/1/3 Henri Yandell
>>
>> > Yes we change the site betwee
rsioned, in SVN and as a reflection of the SVN/release
> > of the code base.
> >
> > G
> >
> > Original message
> > From: Benedikt Ritter
> > Date:01/03/2014 08:12 (GMT-05:00)
> > To: Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [LANG] S
ease
> of the code base.
>
> G
>
> Original message
> From: Benedikt Ritter
> Date:01/03/2014 08:12 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [LANG] Snap-shot version in website header
>
> 2014/1/3 Henri Yandell
>
> >
But the site is versioned, in SVN and as a reflection of the SVN/release of the
code base.
G
Original message
From: Benedikt Ritter
Date:01/03/2014 08:12 (GMT-05:00)
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [LANG] Snap-shot version in website header
2014/1/3 Henri
On 3 January 2014 13:12, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2014/1/3 Henri Yandell
>
>> Yes we change the site between releases.
>>
>> The bigger question is why we have a version number on the website, it
>> isn't versioned.
>>
>
> Well at least the repots have kind of a version, because they reflect the
2014/1/3 Henri Yandell
> Yes we change the site between releases.
>
> The bigger question is why we have a version number on the website, it
> isn't versioned.
>
Well at least the repots have kind of a version, because they reflect the
state of the code they were build against.
And to me the rep
Yes we change the site between releases.
The bigger question is why we have a version number on the website, it
isn't versioned.
Hen
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Duncan Jones wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The top of the commons-lang web page reads:
>
> "Last Published: 01 January 2014 | Version: 3
2014/1/2 sebb
> On 2 January 2014 15:38, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> > 2014/1/2 sebb
> >
> >> On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> > It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site
> >> IMO,
> >> > but it is the default behavior so to speak.
> >>
> >> That depen
2014/1/2 Gary Gregory
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
>
> > 2014/1/2 Gary Gregory
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2014/1/2 sebb
> > > >
> > > > > On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory
> > wrote:
> > > > > > It'
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2014/1/2 Gary Gregory
>
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2014/1/2 sebb
> > >
> > > > On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> > > > > It's a constant problem. There is not much use havin
2014/1/2 Gary Gregory
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
>
> > 2014/1/2 sebb
> >
> > > On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > > It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site
> > > IMO,
> > > > but it is the default behavior so to spe
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 2 January 2014 15:38, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> > 2014/1/2 sebb
> >
> >> On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> > It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site
> >> IMO,
> >> > but it is the default behavior so
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2014/1/2 sebb
>
> > On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site
> > IMO,
> > > but it is the default behavior so to speak.
> >
> > That depends on the RM.
> >
>
On 2 January 2014 15:38, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2014/1/2 sebb
>
>> On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site
>> IMO,
>> > but it is the default behavior so to speak.
>>
>> That depends on the RM.
>>
>> It's perfectly
2014/1/2 sebb
> On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site
> IMO,
> > but it is the default behavior so to speak.
>
> That depends on the RM.
>
> It's perfectly possible to deploy the website from the tag instead of
> tr
On 2 January 2014 14:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
> It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site IMO,
> but it is the default behavior so to speak.
That depends on the RM.
It's perfectly possible to deploy the website from the tag instead of trunk.
> Gary
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2
It's a constant problem. There is not much use having a SNAPSHOT site IMO,
but it is the default behavior so to speak.
Gary
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Duncan Jones wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The top of the commons-lang web page reads:
>
> "Last Published: 01 January 2014 | Version: 3.3-SNAPSHO
Hi all,
The top of the commons-lang web page reads:
"Last Published: 01 January 2014 | Version: 3.3-SNAPSHOT "
Shouldn't that read:
"Last Published: 01 January 2014 | Version: 3.2 " ??
Or are we changing the site between releases, thus necessitating that
we build a site using the current (sn
21 matches
Mail list logo
