Anything changed here?
Stephan
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Guillermo Polito
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Guillermo Polito <
>> guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Guillermo Polito <
> guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Ben Coman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Guillermo
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Ben Coman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Guillermo Polito <
>> guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> About tagging... It looks super
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Ben Coman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Guillermo Polito <
> guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> About tagging... It looks super ackward to me to tag EVERY commit with
>> "build information".
>>
>
> I'm not sure which comment
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Guillermo Polito
wrote:
> About tagging... It looks super ackward to me to tag EVERY commit with
> "build information".
>
I'm not sure which comment your responding to, and not sure what you mean
by "build information", but obviously
Hi Guille,
Thanks for caring.
I would vote to have the build number BEFORE the sha in the image name as this allows for easy sorting if we have several image files or image file
Archives in a single/the same folder (sort from older to more recent Images) as it is for instance on files.pharo.org
About tagging... It looks super ackward to me to tag EVERY commit with
"build information". Building does not mean releasing... I prefer the other
way around: we tag builds with commit information. Like that we know how to
reproduce the build.
I'm ok with tagging build artifacts by explicitly
I made a PR
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/185
this PR adds a script that will rename built archives accordingly. I
propose the following file names for the zip:
Pharo${IMAGE_KIND}-7.0.0-arch.32bit.sha.${HASH}.build.${BUILD_NUMBER}.zip
Where:
IMAGE_KIND is the built product (core
Hi, I created an issue:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20290/Add-build-number-to-uploaded-files
I propose to keep both the sha and add the build number. Also, to follow
semantic version conventions, we should use $- instead of $/. Something
like:
Hi torsten
Yes it sounds good to have MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH/BUILDNUMBER scheme
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> reason is that for Pharo 7 currently an sha git hash is used in the file
> name
> instead of a (more clear) build number.
>
> See
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> reason is that for Pharo 7 currently an sha git hash is used in the file
> name
> instead of a (more clear) build number.
>
> See http://files.pharo.org/image/70/
>
> This problem (which has more side effects
Hi Ben,
reason is that for Pharo 7 currently an sha git hash is used in the file name
instead of a (more clear) build number.
See http://files.pharo.org/image/70/
This problem (which has more side effects on different sides, not only the Launcher now) was discussed
already yesterday on
13 matches
Mail list logo