Hi Tim:
If it is/was a migration problem, I was just curious. Going forward, I'm
interested in knowing if the file naming convention is suppose to be
consistent or if this was a one time glitch? That was my motivation for
asking the question.
Not trying to "point fingers". Honest.
Regards,
Ruth
Tim Ruppert wrote:
I think we can simply go back to the same reasons that the files aren't
perfectly provided by the ASF yet ... there were problems in the migration of
services that have not been rectified yet. It was certainly there just fine on
the old server just fine.
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
Hi Christian:
Thanks. I didn't know I needed to use Subversion. I was hoping I could just use
the existing list of downloads to retrieve the version I needed.
So, just out of curiosity, why was the original file
(ofbiz-rel9.04-2009-903429.zip) I downloaded not on the list of snapshots?
Actually, now that I look, it still isn't on the list. Would it be fair to say
that the file naming convention, at least for the nightly builds of release
9.04, is not of any use? Don't rely on it to pick up older versions?
Regards
Ruth
Christian Geisert wrote:
Ruth Hoffman schrieb:
2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a
downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of 814733. If I
want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04 file should I look for?
How do I know which of the files under the Nightly 9.04 builds comes closest to
matching the one I originally download (which isn't there anymore.)?
Mmmmh, on 1st of January the svn revision was 894953 - so both of your
mentioned numbers don't make sense (to me at least ;-).
But if you want the revision from 1st of January you can check it out with
svn co -r {2010-01-01}
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release09.04
