Hi Nate
Sorry, this was a typo, I meant to write: "does noW result in the
same changeset number (ie '6528')" - so everything is fine now.
I apologize for the confusion
Hans
On 02/01/2012 07:13 PM, Nate Coraor wrote:
On Jan 23, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote:
Hi Nate
Y
On Jan 23, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote:
> Hi Nate
>
> Yes, upgrading one of our old servers with "hg pull -u -r 63bc46cc73b7" and
> downloading a new clone with "hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy
> galaxy-dist", does not result in the same changeset number (ie '6528')
>
> T
Hi Nate
Yes, upgrading one of our old servers with "hg pull -u -r 63bc46cc73b7"
and downloading a new clone with "hg clone
http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist", does not result in the
same changeset number (ie '6528')
Thank you very much
Hans
On 01/20/2012 09:04 AM, Hans-Rudolf Ho
Hi Nate
Thank you very much for your e-mail
I am still testing and working on the last distribution, hopefully going
live this Sunday. But I will look into downloading and upgrading (one of
our dev servers) to the new distribution next week.
Regards, Hans
On 01/19/2012 07:39 PM, Nate Coraor
Hi Hans,
We're releasing a distribution today. If this is still the case with that
distribution, let me know. There were branches that weren't showing up under
newer versions of Mercurial. Hopefully this is all resolved in the latest.
--nate
On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wro
Hi
I am in the process of upgrading all our Galaxy servers to the current
changeset ("b258de1e6cea", Nov. 18) and I have noticed an inconsistency:
If I upgrade one of our old servers (which was on "720455407d1c", June
23) with 'hg pull -u -r b258de1e6cea' I get the following:
haruhotz@sili
