2015-04-21 14:53 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: > > > On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:37, Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 21/04/15 13:14, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > > >> nope, solution is to explicit version to load :) > > > > Explicit symbolic version, that is. > > Never a fixed number, as that can't be patched. > > That breaks the update process just as well. > > no... explicit fixed number. I need version 1.0.42, not #stable or > #myCoolFantasyNumberWichAfterAllIsEqualButWorstTo-1-0-42 > And of course can be patched.... with version 1.0.43. >
Where are those version numbers stored? Is it possible to modify a configuration outside and break that process? That's the only way to be able to make the update process work. > No. Thierry > > Esteban > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > >
