Re: [Libreoffice-qa] daily vs. 4.-0+ bibisect repos [was: Trouble bibisecting - 'com::sun::star::uno::RuntimeException']

2013-10-25 Thread bjoern
Hi Mirosław, Im CC'ing Jibel on this, so he might comment on the things wrt to the Canonical QA lab repo. @Jibel: You find the full post at http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Trouble-bibisecting-com-sun-star-uno-RuntimeException-tp4079718p4079667.html On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] daily vs. 4.-0+ bibisect repos [was: Trouble bibisecting - 'com::sun::star::uno::RuntimeException']

2013-10-25 Thread Mirosław Zalewski
Dnia 2013-10-25, o godz. 21:39:15 bjoern bjoern.michael...@canonical.com napisał(a): Yes, for bibisecting, currently Bjoern 4.0 and Bjoern 2013-10-12 are the way to go. The Jean archive might be helpful once the Bjoern 2013-10-12 repo grows too old -- OTOH hopefully, by then we have

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] daily vs. 4.-0+ bibisect repos [was: Trouble bibisecting - 'com::sun::star::uno::RuntimeException']

2013-10-24 Thread Mirosław Zalewski
Hi all I spent afternoon with git manual and repeatedly removing/unpacking bibisect archives and I think I understand a little more now. Dnia 2013-10-24, o godz. 11:29:42 dk...@torfree.net napisał(a): I am confused about the names daily and 4.0+ for bibisect repositoriies. Does it make sense