... having said that though, with the benefit of a little hindsight and the application of not a little CM common sense, isn't there a shortfall in Mercurial in as much as I would expect an update to b73 to remove nashorn as a sub-repo from the forest since it wasn't present when the tag was created ... or is it me ?
-- Dave Pointon FIAP MBCS Now I saw, tho' too late, the folly of beginning a work before we count the cost and before we we judge rightly of our strength to go thro' with it - Robinson Crusoe On 7 May 2014 19:00, Dave Pointon <point...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanx for the fast response, Dave - reply duly noted and indeed > promulgated :-) > > Thanx again , > > -- > Dave Pointon FIAP MBCS > > Now I saw, tho' too late, the folly of beginning a work before we count > the cost and before we we judge rightly of our strength to go thro' with it > - Robinson Crusoe > > > On 7 May 2014 18:57, David Katleman <david.katle...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> >> On 5/7/2014 10:18 AM, Dave Pointon wrote: >> >>> Greetings fellow builders , >>> >>> I have a question, as the subject suggests, regarding the version of the >>> nashorn repo - specifically, one of my current tasks is to attempt to >>> build >>> OJDK level jdk8-b73 but I can't find that level/tag in the nashorn repo. >>> >>> Is there a usual or even standard, method used in OJDK to establish the >>> appropriate level of sub-repos ? >>> >> >> nashorn wasn't added to JDK 8 until about b82, so earlier tags wouldn't >> be there. >> >> Looks like the creator of nashorn did add some older tags to the repo to >> help out in situations like this, but b73 was omitted >> >> In this case, you could use jdk8-b69, and you would get the same as what >> you would get for b73, which is nothing, since nashorn was still empty. >> >> Thanks >> Dave >> > >
