On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:34:57 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:02:50 -0500 Michael Blumenkrantz > <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> said: > > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:51:50 +0900 > > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:37:58 +0100 Stefan Schmidt > > > <ste...@datenfreihafen.org> > > > said: > > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 14:28, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 07:11, Jeff Hoogland wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure this is the case - just like Simon alpha4 builds fine > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > Really strange. I reviewd the commits that gone into rc1 and efl 1.8.2 > > > > > but I can't see anything that broke this. Also its building fine for > > > > > me and on jenkins. > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate I guess I'll try just disabling physics then. > > > > > > > > > > Please do. The physics module was not really maintained and Mike just > > > > > removed it so it will be gone in the next rc and the final release > > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > > > Having it disabled manually for the rc1 should be ok for the people > > > > > encountering this problem. Does that sound good for you guys? > > > > > > > > To avoid any more confusion on this Mike and I decided that I will > > > > prepare a new rc1 tarball with the removal commit and upload it. Will > > > > send a mail once its up. > > > > > > how about.. rc2? :) > > > > I don't want to drag this process out unnecessarily. > > there are still bugs being filed on phab... and i was more making the point > that re-spinning a tarball with the same name/version is not a good thing. > "which rc1 do you have?" "i don't know. rc1!". :) if there is a re-spin.. at > least call it rc2... :) i could have done a "re spin" for 1.8.1 (another > 1.8.0) > as no code changed - it was a m4 macro doing the totally unexpected. but i had > to do 1.8.1 :( > there was no "re spin" as you call it. the tarballs sent to the list were PREVIEW tarballs, and it was explicitly stated that they may or may not have been the final release tarballs for those versions. you absolutely could not have done the same thing, as you did not send your prepared tarballs to any lists prior to doing the release. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
