Just discovered that the reason for this is that the compiler somehow changed
the path to the mainstack in the Stack Properties Stack Files. What the...??? I
reset the path to the main stack and now I can compile.
Bob S
On Nov 15, 2016, at 09:37 , Bob Sneidar
mailto:bobsnei...@iotecdigital.co
com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4710301&i=0>>
> wrote:
>
> > I make use of the savingStandalone message in a few projects. Generally,
> > I would prefer a single message regardless of the number of platforms I
> > am building for. For ecample, I set
y and it wants to save/purge it. As I mentioned
this started happening with 8.1.1.
Bob S
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 01:45 , Ali Lloyd wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Various tweaks to the standalone builder seem to have broken the way the
> savingStandalone message is
On 15/11/2016 22:48, Paul Dupuis wrote:
On 11/15/2016 3:41 PM, Ali Lloyd wrote:
I was thinking a parameter array would be better than many additional
params. That way, additional info is cheap.
So currently the proposed params are:
- current build platform
- current build target/architecture (t
On 11/15/2016 3:41 PM, Ali Lloyd wrote:
> I was thinking a parameter array would be better than many additional
> params. That way, additional info is cheap.
>
> So currently the proposed params are:
> - current build platform
> - current build target/architecture (to disambiguate between 32 bit/64
Ah yes, I had unthinkingly just corrected the folder parameter to
standaloneSaved, but I will have to do it in the array data for backwards
compatibility I suppose.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:51 PM Richard Gaskin
wrote:
> Ali Lloyd wrote:
>
> > I was thinking a parameter array would be better th
Ali Lloyd wrote:
> I was thinking a parameter array would be better than many additional
> params. That way, additional info is cheap.
>
> So currently the proposed params are:
> - current build platform
> - current build target/architecture (to disambiguate between 32 bit/64
> bit/both)
> - tota
omated processes, hard to beat the simplicity of a single integer
> value.
>
> But I can appreciate that some may not maintain both a version number
> and a build number, and it's not my place to require that they do.
>
> So I'm not opposed to any params sent with a savin
my place to require that they do.
So I'm not opposed to any params sent with a savingStandalone message
that work well for most folks. The platform distinction is a must, and
I'd love to have the destination path, but beyond that I can take care
of my own needs well enough.
--
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:
> I'm less certain about the count params, and would favor a build number.
> But that would require that all of us use build numbers, and perhaps some
> don't, so I'm not opposed either.
I would like to see flexibility on this. Personally
On 15/11/2016 17:14, Richard Gaskin wrote:
I'm less certain about the count params, and would favor a build number.
But that would require that all of us use build numbers, and perhaps some
don't, so I'm not opposed either.
To be clear, which I may not have been, my proposal was that the parame
n I do not know), so that when it goes to comile for
> Mac a second library is open in memory and it wants to save/purge it. As I
> mentioned this started happening with 8.1.1.
>
> Bob S
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 01:45 , Ali Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> Paul, I'd think that your needs (which certainly overlap with
> mine...) could be met by adopting Ali's suggestion in that report
> of a single message with parameter to indicate which platform was
> being built for, if there was an additional parameter to indicate
> that
saveStackRequest message) and clear it for the standalone(s) when built.
As noted, I could code around it, or, as I consider this, I realize in
this specific case where I am clearing a property, repeated calls of the
savingStandalone message would not matter. In another I add a date and
time stamp
Thanks for the feedback Paul. How is your build number increment
implemented?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM Paul Dupuis wrote:
> I make use of the savingStandalone message in a few projects. Generally,
> I would prefer a single message regardless of the number of platforms I
> am bui
s, you could increment only for the "1/3" case.
On 15/11/2016 13:18, Paul Dupuis wrote:
I make use of the savingStandalone message in a few projects. Generally,
I would prefer a single message regardless of the number of platforms I
am building for. For ecample, I set a incremental "
I make use of the savingStandalone message in a few projects. Generally,
I would prefer a single message regardless of the number of platforms I
am building for. For ecample, I set a incremental "build' number on
savingStandalone and I would want that build number to be the same for
all
Hi all,
Various tweaks to the standalone builder seem to have broken the way the
savingStandalone message is supposed to work
http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18778
I have submitted a pull request that fixes it - the only wrinkle might be
that it reintroduces the following bug:
http
18 matches
Mail list logo
