(resending from my progeeks.com address to avoid being filtered/delayed by moderation.)
Dan Sandberg wrote: > > Ugh this is painful. I'll checkout your stuff within the next few days. > If the architecture looks good and does have significantly greater > functionality I will merge my changes into your code. > > I also fixed the included variable problem and the nested include > problems. The conditional stuff was the only thing I thought I was missing. Hmmm... maybe it isn't as bad as I thought? I don't know. I know there were some parsing problems that kept variable substituation from working correctly. > > I'm curious: How could I have checked out an older version accidently? > Wouldn't I have had to explicitly specify a date or tag or something? Well, if you started working from a tarball of the source, that might have done it. I think that's what happened in my case originally. I can't remember exactly, but the tarball I had might have even had CVS directories in it with sticky tags already set... ie: keeping me from easily getting the latest without checking out the whole source tree from scratch. > > ... This is all quite depressing ... Indeed. Thanks for being so gracious about all of this. I really felt quite sick when I saw what I missed. That'll teach me to ignore my inbox. :) -Paul > > -Dan > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
