You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@ofbiz.apache.org by jl...@apache.org on 2010/06/05 14:05:50 UTC
svn commit: r951696 - /ofbiz/branches/Dojo1.4/
Author: jleroux
Date: Sat Jun 5 12:05:50 2010
New Revision: 951696
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=951696&view=rev
Log:
To replace our current Dojo version (I guess 1.2) with 1.4.
There are number of syntax changes, hence the branch
Added:
ofbiz/branches/Dojo1.4/
- copied from r951695, ofbiz/branches/
Re: svn commit: r951696 - /ofbiz/branches/Dojo1.4/
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Yes sorry, a mistake in Subclipse :/
Jacques
From: "Adam Heath" <do...@brainfood.com>
> jleroux@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: jleroux
>> Date: Sat Jun 5 12:05:50 2010
>> New Revision: 951696
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=951696&view=rev
>> Log:
>> To replace our current Dojo version (I guess 1.2) with 1.4.
>> There are number of syntax changes, hence the branch
>>
>> Added:
>> ofbiz/branches/Dojo1.4/
>> - copied from r951695, ofbiz/branches/
>
> I know this has already been fixed, by removing the branch, and
> recreating, but please try to be careful in the future. My git svn
> has been busy for the last 3 hours, as it tries to recreate the
> history for this orphaned branch.
>
> ps: the problem here is that the branches folder itself was the base
> of the branch, instead of trunk.
>
Re: svn commit: r951696 - /ofbiz/branches/Dojo1.4/
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
jleroux@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jleroux
> Date: Sat Jun 5 12:05:50 2010
> New Revision: 951696
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=951696&view=rev
> Log:
> To replace our current Dojo version (I guess 1.2) with 1.4.
> There are number of syntax changes, hence the branch
>
> Added:
> ofbiz/branches/Dojo1.4/
> - copied from r951695, ofbiz/branches/
I know this has already been fixed, by removing the branch, and
recreating, but please try to be careful in the future. My git svn
has been busy for the last 3 hours, as it tries to recreate the
history for this orphaned branch.
ps: the problem here is that the branches folder itself was the base
of the branch, instead of trunk.