Oh - I didn't think you were pointing them - I'm going to get this fixed up sometime soon because it seems odd that the file creation is different - but it will require a full audit - which I hope will get done sometime this week. Once this is fixed - we can cull together all of the information about the full site organization upgrades and go from there.
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
