On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:27:54 +0100, Louis Gesbert wrote: > > Indeed, that would break (quite badly) -- Thomas thought that the url file > already supported (unused) archive lists, but that must have been removed at > some point. > If it's very important to have this now, I can modify the patch so that it > only changes the repo in a 1.1.0-compatible way, by adding a `mirror` field > instead of changing the current type of the `archive` and similar fields. I > tend to think that the smoothness of upgrade may be worth the slightly less > clear resulting file format. > > Any opinions on this ? The problem still exists even if we shift that after > release.
Does it break if we allow several archive fields? _______________________________________________ Platform mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
