Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F2FFDCC.3090707@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:20:28 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Schmidt?= <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [BUILD]: propose next DEveloper snapshot builds based on revision
 r1240921
References: <4F2F94A5.7060602@googlemail.com>
 <4F2F9BD3.7070008@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F2F9BD3.7070008@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

MacOS builds are ready and available online

Juergen

On 2/6/12 10:22 AM, J�rgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 2/6/12 9:51 AM, J�rgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose that we prepare the next set of dev snapshots
>> based on the revision r1240893. The buildbot has successfully build this
>> revision and I think we can use it for the next snapshot builds.
>>
>> The builds will be made available again under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
>>
>>
>
> To clarify the used revision number and to avoid confusion or should I
> say to cleanup my own confusion in the morning.
>
> The last revision where changes were made on our repo was 1240836 by
> Andrew. The last build bot output reported mentioned rev. 1240893 and a
> svn update gives me 1240921 (at least for me in the morning). For us is
> always the "Last Changed Rev: ..." relevant that you get for example by
> "svn info".
>
> In the past I think we have named our snapshot always with the last
> changed revision and we should continue to do so.
>
> Means the next developer snapshots are based on the last changes in rev.
> 1240836.
>
> Juergen
>
> PS: did I mentioned that I would love to have an own repo for our
> sources, ideally based on a distributed scs ;-). No further comment
> necessary because I know that we can't change it at the moment.
>
>