Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
[...]
I'd suggest that we remove the externals declaration to avoid
confusion and to keep the tagged version smaller.
you mean require users to download 2.1.10 separately? i don't like
that...
How should we handle it? Should we include the source tree?
My first thought was to change the svn:externals to the tagged
version of 2.1.10. But this version includes svn:externals for
the blocks, so that wouldn't make sense.
i don't understand... what's the problem with including an external to
the 2.1.10 tagged branch? why should we care about any externals in cocoon?
When one checks it out, the Cocoon externals are fetched from the
head. Unfortunately SVN doesn't support specifying a revision
for externals (AFAIK).
i see.
but doesn't cocoon use tags for their blocks? i know there was talk
about doing asynchronous releases to avoid having one broken block
delaying a release, but i'm sure they have a completely tagged 2.1.10
version somewhere?
we should probably ask on cocoon-dev, but i don't feel comfortable
enough with svn externals subtleties...
that said, if it turns out there is no way to include cocoon in our svn
tagged branch in a sane way, i could add a download option to
configure.sh, like "Cocoon 2.1.10: _d_ownload or _u_se existing? [D|u]".
wdyt?
that said, is there a download tool like ftp or wget that can be relied
on to exist on every windows machine?
--
jörn nettingsmeier
home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/
http://spunk.dnsalias.org
phone://+49/201/491621
Kurt is up in Heaven now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
