This OK. Thanks.
Vào 21:12:40 UTC+7 Thứ ba, ngày 27 tháng ba năm 2012, Massimo Di Pierro đã
viết:
>
> Have you checked trunk or the nightly built. I believe this was fixed?
>
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2012 03:56:35 UTC-5, IVINH wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In my app, LOAD not work fine with 1.99.7, i'm try
Have you checked trunk or the nightly built. I believe this was fixed?
On Tuesday, 27 March 2012 03:56:35 UTC-5, IVINH wrote:
>
>
>
> In my app, LOAD not work fine with 1.99.7, i'm try a test:
> 1. copy my view (contain js script), example: index.html to index.load
> 2. run : .../index.html and t
Please check trunk. I believe this was fixed.
On Tuesday, 27 March 2012 03:56:35 UTC-5, IVINH wrote:
>
>
>
> In my app, LOAD not work fine with 1.99.7, i'm try a test:
> 1. copy my view (contain js script), example: index.html to index.load
> 2. run : .../index.html and then .../index.load
>
> Bo
In my app, LOAD not work fine with 1.99.7, i'm try a test:
1. copy my view (contain js script), example: index.html to index.load
2. run : .../index.html and then .../index.load
Both work well with the 1.99.4, but the second was not correct with 1.99.7
I think this is problem of extension .html
Can you describe the problem? Is the below view the index.load view? What
is in plugin_app/layout.html? Should that be extended rather than included?
Anthony
On Monday, March 26, 2012 11:23:34 PM UTC-4, IVINH wrote:
>
>
>
> I have two views similar but different extension (index.html & index.loa
I have two views similar but different extension (index.html & index.load).
Both work well with the 1.99.4, but index.load was not for 1.99.7?
My view:
{{include 'plugin_app/layout.html'}}
{{=content}}
Vào 05:29:43 UTC+7 Thứ hai, ngày 05 tháng ba năm 2012, Massimo Di Pierro
Massimo, I have the version from GIT [ http://github.com/mdipierro/web2py/ ]
It says trunk on web2py site [ http://web2py.com/examples/default/download
] but when I start the server it says
Version 1.99.7 (2012-03-04 16:03:35) stable
In any case, when I go to the admin/site, check_version runs i
I don't think people are against it per se. It's just probably not as easy
as it sounds. You then have to figure out what fixes go into the stable
branch and the potential for a mess increases.
Using git the right way would be much easier to test and not get
caught whensending
patches
2012/3/6 drelyn86
> I think the more relevant question is about how to get more active
> participation from the userbase in the testing of nightly builds... at
> least on a semi regular basis.
--
Alva
I think the more relevant question is about how to get more active
participation from the userbase in the testing of nightly builds... at least on
a semi regular basis.
>
> i would prefer to have DEV and Stable(production) branches (or labels) .
>
> Due to 2-3 times of broken updates , i am reluctant to update my web2py to
> latest version , until people reports less problems with that particular
> update version.
>
Basically, x.xx.1 versions are essentially r
i would prefer to have DEV and Stable(production) branches (or labels) .
Due to 2-3 times of broken updates , i am reluctant to update my web2py to
latest version , until people reports less problems with that particular
update version.
I am seeing many Opensource software , both big and small ha
Again i suggest read this
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ for a best workflow
for git and github.
2012/3/5 pbreit
> Until we have stable and dev branches I'm not sure we need to do any of
> this. And it still seems like the pace of change would make dev/stable
> branches
Until we have stable and dev branches I'm not sure we need to do any of
this. And it still seems like the pace of change would make dev/stable
branches difficult.
There are a lot of people testing the current changeset so problems get
fixed relatively quickly. If you don't want to take a chance
Maybe we should create another label such as "production" or "GA" vs
latest (instead of "nightly build"). "production" becomes latest
after no major bugs are found for a 5 days. The name change also
encourage testing "latest"... on could feel more comfortable at first
sight.
mic
Il 05 marzo 2
we do. We have the nightly build and we do post release candidates in
advance. The problem is that not many people test it.
On Monday, 5 March 2012 12:31:49 UTC-6, spiffytech wrote:
>
> Have you considered publishing release candidates ~1 week ahead of a
> release, to allow early-adopters to upg
Have you considered publishing release candidates ~1 week ahead of a
release, to allow early-adopters to upgrade and see what's broken,
rather than having the rapid stream of releases? I saw you said "I'm
releasing 1.99.5 tomorrow, please test it today", but that's rather a
short and informal testi
17 matches
Mail list logo
