Tend to agree, but this focus on the (technical) solution is not what it
is about, maybe.
I think $Revision$ renders a file revision like "1.47," which is not
very helpful. It is the (most recent!) {tree} tag that we would need; as
far as I know there is no explicit keyword for this.
Major thing
OMG :-(
Cheers,
Joost.
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 19:55 +0100, Pascal Georges wrote:
>
>
> 2009/3/2 Joost ´t Hart
> Hi,
>
> Sorry that I did not get too much response to my thoughts
> below.
> Disappointing indeed...
>
> Well then let me ask
Pascal Georges wrote:
Hi!
> Sorry that I did not get too much response to my thoughts below.
> Disappointing indeed...
>
> Well then let me ask a question: How is it possible that a 3.7.1 was
> 'released for download' whereas the about box in the CVS still names it
> 3.7?
>
2009/3/2 Joost ´t Hart
> Hi,
>
> Sorry that I did not get too much response to my thoughts below.
> Disappointing indeed...
>
> Well then let me ask a question: How is it possible that a 3.7.1 was
> 'released for download' whereas the about box in the CVS still names it
> 3.7?
Simply that the f
Joost ´t Hart wrote:
Hi!
> Sorry that I did not get too much response to my thoughts below.
> Disappointing indeed...
>
> Well then let me ask a question: How is it possible that a 3.7.1 was
> 'released for download' whereas the about box in the CVS still names it
> 3.7?
Just noticed that the t
Hi,
Sorry that I did not get too much response to my thoughts below.
Disappointing indeed...
Well then let me ask a question: How is it possible that a 3.7.1 was
'released for download' whereas the about box in the CVS still names it
3.7?
Regards,
Joost.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 15:15 +0100, Joost
Hi,
We use cvs, ok, but as I see it we only do version control on individual
files. For several reasons this may not be sufficient.
Version control makes no sense if you are not prepared to revert to a
previous revision and branch-and-merge in case "something has gone
wrong." For individual files
