Well, all problems solved, the world is happy again :-)<br><br>Robin<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Khalid B</b> <<a href="mailto:kb@2bits.com">kb@2bits.com</a>> wrote:
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">(Sending to list)<br><br>You don't.<br><br>Here it is <a href="http://drupal.org/project/Drupal%20project/cvs">
http://drupal.org/project/Drupal%20project/cvs</a><br><br>No CVS knowledge required.<br><br>On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <<a href="mailto:devlinks@gmail.com">devlinks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>> On 12/14/05, Khalid B <
<a href="mailto:kb@2bits.com">kb@2bits.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > Nothing wrong with them, as long as every one knows they are a moving<br>> target.<br>> ><br>> > CVS is a nightly build. Beta 1 is supposed to be a snapshot in time, and
<br>> hence<br>> > should not change.<br>> ><br>> > So, in essence, if one wants nightly builds, go for CVS, if you want a<br>> beta or<br>> > release candidate then beta 1 it is (or rc when it comes out).
<br>><br>> As I said, not everyone wants to deal with CVS.<br>><br>> Robin<br>><br>> > On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <<a href="mailto:devlinks@gmail.com">devlinks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > > +1 for the sake of +1...
<br>> > ><br>> > > What's wrong with nightly tarballs?<br>> > ><br>> > > Robin<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > On 12/14/05, James Walker <<a href="mailto:walkah@walkah.net">
walkah@walkah.net</a> > wrote:<br>> > > > On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:<br>> > > > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert<br>> > > > > <<a href="mailto:dries.buytaert@gmail.com">
dries.buytaert@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > > > ><br>> > > > >> On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bčr Kessels wrote:<br>> > > > >>> I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other
<br>> > > > >>> words beta1<br>> > > > >>> == head.<br>> > > > >><br>> > > > >> beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not<br>
> updated<br>> > > > >> automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets<br>> > > > >> repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number<br>> of<br>
> > > > >> important fixes.<br>> > > > ><br>> > > > > I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not<br>> update<br>> > > > > automatically. When we talk about
4.7 beta 1, we know what state<br>> the<br>> > > > > code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if<br>> > > > > something is a new problem or existed when the release was first
<br>> > > created.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > +1<br>> > > ><br>> > > > --<br>> > > > James Walker :: <a href="http://walkah.net/">http://walkah.net/</a> :: <a href="mailto:xmpp:walkah@walkah.net">
xmpp:walkah@walkah.net</a><br>> > > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > --<br>> > > Robin Monks,<br>> > > CSL Web Administrator<br>> > > <a href="mailto:robin@civicspacelabs.org">
robin@civicspacelabs.org</a><br>> ><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>><br>> Robin Monks,<br>> CSL Web Administrator<br>> <a href="mailto:robin@civicspacelabs.org">robin@civicspacelabs.org</a><br></blockquote>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Robin Monks,<br>CSL Web Administrator<br><a href="mailto:robin@civicspacelabs.org">robin@civicspacelabs.org</a>