On 5/2/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
> Did you figure out what he is talking about ? Could you summarise - I
> can't parse his rant.
To be honest, not really. The point is that I simplified the deployer so
that only one meaningful information is considered
Costin Manolache wrote:
Did you figure out what he is talking about ? Could you summarise - I
can't parse his rant.
To be honest, not really. The point is that I simplified the deployer so
that only one meaningful information is considered (for example, when
deploying an archive the path come
Did you figure out what he is talking about ? Could you summarise - I
can't parse his rant.
Costin
On 5/2/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Whitmore wrote:
> Perhaps my bug report came across as a rant, because it had covered
> several attempts all of which featured Contexts
Thomas Whitmore wrote:
Perhaps my bug report came across as a rant, because it had covered
several attempts all of which featured Contexts being non-functional
or deployment auto-deleting what it shouldn't have,
because I'd already read the docs, searched the web, read the NGs,
read the bug repo
Hi people,
As posted thru this series, Context Specifiers (which should be conceptually
trivial) seem to have become a problem area. To some extent Deployment also
seems to be touched by this.
I identify the problem as Design and lack of conceptual clarity, rather than
code.
We can see a la
