On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> The issue here is that the deploy to sourceforge failed so the server
> never tagged and pushed locally. Although there is an intermediate release
> branch. And indeed there are two. One for M0 and one for beta1. Which one
> was intended?
>
>
> The issue here is that the deploy to sourceforge failed so the server never
> tagged and pushed locally. Although there is an intermediate release branch.
> And indeed there are two. One for M0 and one for beta1. Which one was
> intended?
>
>
>
>
>
Both! 9.0-M0 was "released" some months
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Interesting, the logs show it deploying to maven … let me hunt down the
> exact revision: 777676f28ce920a93885a0f1b9a57ce167e5c8d9
> Not quite sure how to find the revision for 9.0-M0 (too bad we did not
> notice at the time).
>
> I did tag t
Interesting, the logs show it deploying to maven … let me hunt down the exact
revision: 777676f28ce920a93885a0f1b9a57ce167e5c8d9
Not quite sure how to find the revision for 9.0-M0 (too bad we did not notice
at the time).
I did tag that commit, and push it up - before coming to my senses and noti
it seems the tag still has to be pushed to github? (the 9.0-M0 tag seems to
be missing as well..)
--
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep y
Went mostly smoothly, had to manually upload artefacts to source forge (script
problem transferring the files, I think due to the "GeoTools 9 releases" folder
not being created yet?
-
http://sourceforge.net/projects/geotools/files/GeoTools%209%20Releases/9.0-beta1/
I did test the build artefac
