On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:05 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> On Jan 19, 2009, at 5:04 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >>> IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >>>> i just put a bugfix release of Gem-0.91 online. >>>> or svn checkout from >>>> - https://pd-gem.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pd-gem/tags/0.91-2/ >>> having said that, it would be nice that any autobuilds that >>> explicitely use 0.91(0,1) should be updated to use 0.91-2 >>> >>> fgasm,dr >>> IOhannes >> I think the 'pd-extended' auto-build uses trunk for everything but >> 'pd', which uses the 'pd-extended/0.41.4' branch. Once I make the >> release cycle (soon), I'll make a branch of everything. Should I >> use that version of Gem for the release branch? > > did you already do the switch (libmpeg3 build errors popped up again)? > i just realized it would be better to use > https://pd-gem.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pd-gem/branches/0.91/ > since this one will eventually get even more bugfixes (and as a > matter of fact already has some more in it: 0.91.3; though the > libmpeg3 issue has probably not been backported yet) > > fgmasdr > IOhannes
The pd-extended nightly build is indeed using the branch, not the tag: https://pd-gem.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pd-gem/branches/0.91/Gem .hc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- kill your television _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list