Thanks, a bump caused by our change from JS based packing to Ant based packing. We'll fix it for b3.
jjb On Oct 15, 1:56 pm, Nicolas Hatier <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it possible there was a packaging issue in beta 2? I don't know if > it's intended, but there seems to be a copy of beta 1 inside the /dist > subdirectory (/dist/firebug-1.6XJ.0b1.BZ). > > This makes the new package 2x the size of beta 1... > > Nicolas > > On 2010-10-15 13:43, John J Barton wrote: > > > > > On Oct 15, 10:01 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> awesome beta! question: is it worth switching from 1.7a back to 1.6b > >> for other than stability reasons? > > 1.7a has everything in 1.6b. 1.7a also has new things. > > We'll start making more rapid changes on 1.7 soon, though our goal is > > to keep it completely usable and to push it out to beta by the end of > > the year. > > > jjb > > >> On 15 Okt., 17:46, "Honza (Jan Odvarko)"<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>http://blog.getfirebug.com/2010/10/15/firebug-1-6b2/ > >>> Honza -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en.
