On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Jamis Buck wrote:
> Just a word to the wise: if any of you are tracking Capistrano edge > (and I have no idea how many people actually are), things are going > to get pretty wild, shortly. I'm going to begin some massive > refactorings, leading eventually to Capistrano 2.0, and I can > guarantee that for the next little while Capistrano on edge will be > virtually unusable (and will probably not even run). > > If you are tracking edge, I'd encourage you to track the stable > branch, instead: > > http://svn.rubyonrails.org/rails/branches/capistrano_1-x-stable Slightly offtopic, but should the same tracking of the stable branch for Rails (<http://svn.rubyonrails.org/rails/branches/1-2-stable/>) be done, also? I ask because there are a lot of commentaries out there that have folks' Rails version tied to a tag (<http:// svn.rubyonrails.org/rails/tags/rel_1-2-2/>), instead of the current stable branch and want to clarify. The norm would seem to be to track the Rails 1.2 stable branch. Any insight or confirmation appreciated. -- Jason Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila." -Mitch Ratcliffe --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
