On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:49:02AM -0500, Clay Reiche wrote: > Are you sure you're not looking at the date?
Oh, you are probably right. It is 1-0-03/01/05, so that's 1.0 as of 3/1/5, not 1.0.3. So it appears, then, that the cvs will only display 1.0 and the .x part is only relevant for the releases. I also noticed that it's not recommended that one use the CVS version (even of stable) if not watching the asterisk-cvs list. Maybe, then, it would be best for me to revert to using the releases. What is the opinion of the list? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael George > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Asterisk-Users] cvs stable and 1.0.5 > > I see that 1.0.5 is out. I thought that if I am tracking cvs v1.0.x I would > always get the newest releases. However, I just did a fresh update and > install from cvs stable and it reports as only being v1.0.3. > > Should I just be using the tarballs rather than the cvs -r 1_0? Or maybe my > initial cvs was incorrect? -- -M There are 10 kinds of people in this world: Those who can count in binary and those who cannot. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
