On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:07 PM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:03 PM Daniel Ruggeri
> wrote:
>
>>
>> We had a commit after the tag,
>
>
> There are no tags. They are figments of your imagination :) When we
> publish a tarball (even just under /dev/dist/), then we have a t
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:03 PM Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
>
> We had a commit after the tag,
There are no tags. They are figments of your imagination :) When we
publish a tarball (even just under /dev/dist/), then we have a tag.
Please svn rm the errant 2.4.39 tag.
so I've updated only the STATU
Yes indeed - too true! I'll be adding a failsafe for this in the scripts
so it won't happen again.
We had a commit after the tag, so I've updated only the STATUS/CHANGES
files to correct the errant lines. I also svn rm'ed the extra tree under
the 2.4.28 tag.
I'll redo in about 30 more minute
One problem with scripts, they do just what they are told.
You just tagged 2.4.39 as 2.4.38.
Please revert to 2.4.38 and tag - until the tarballs are published to vote
on,
it's all development in svn history.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:48 AM wrote:
> Author: druggeri
> Date: Thu Jan 17 17:48:4
