Yes, that is bad. Can you write a short mail or issue entry about what you did exactly, so that others can try to debug this situation ?
> On 13 Apr 2015, at 16:32, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 13 Apr 2015, at 16:28, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 13 Apr 2015, at 16:17, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Apr 2015, at 15:48, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> We have to generate a new .source file. We will do that for 40606. >>>>> >>>>> This means that there will be two versions of 40606: one that has a V3 >>>>> Sources and one with a V4 source. >>>>> To not get confused, the best is to wait for 607. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok: >>>> >>>> -> sources file is on >>>> http://files.pharo.org/sources/ >>>> >>>> -> the latest image (40606) use it: >>>> >>>> http://files.pharo.org/image/40/latest.zip >>>> >>>> Next: >>>> >>>> - fix get.pharo.org >>>> - fix the scripts that build the downloads >>>> - do a 607 >>> >>> We did it all. >>> >>> Result: it is all broken. We will revert it all. >> >> All broken is a bit harsh, but yes this is not fun. >> > > It is all broken: when you look at a class comment it shows you parts of > method sources. > > Marcus
