User forums > Nightly builds

The 27 July 2009 build (5716) is out.

<< < (4/15) > >>

Jenna:

--- Quote from: Biplab on July 28, 2009, 04:48:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 04:24:26 pm ---
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 28, 2009, 03:18:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 02:09:35 pm ---We parse the date with a regex, if we use automake on linux.

--- End quote ---
Linux I don't know. But he was talking about Windows. However - what's wrong with using the format as it is used in the (any) SVN repository? I mean: We *are* talking about a SVN revision here, right?

--- End quote ---

I know that he is talking about windows.

I don't know, why subversion uses this format for date/time of last commit (internally), but are there any objections against using a format, that's (better) human-readable for the date and time ?

The only cause would be, if we have to distinguish between to revision, that came in at the same second, but we also use the revision-number, so I don't see any problem.
And I don't think the patch to autorevision.cpp can break anything, unless the svn date-format changes.

--- End quote ---

Better consult with Thomas first. Once I wanted to fix this issue. But he didn't want to touch that code. I forgot the exact objection. :)

--- End quote ---

Thomas ?

Biplab:

--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 05:18:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: Biplab on July 28, 2009, 04:48:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 04:24:26 pm ---
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 28, 2009, 03:18:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 02:09:35 pm ---We parse the date with a regex, if we use automake on linux.

--- End quote ---
Linux I don't know. But he was talking about Windows. However - what's wrong with using the format as it is used in the (any) SVN repository? I mean: We *are* talking about a SVN revision here, right?

--- End quote ---

I know that he is talking about windows.

I don't know, why subversion uses this format for date/time of last commit (internally), but are there any objections against using a format, that's (better) human-readable for the date and time ?

The only cause would be, if we have to distinguish between to revision, that came in at the same second, but we also use the revision-number, so I don't see any problem.
And I don't think the patch to autorevision.cpp can break anything, unless the svn date-format changes.

--- End quote ---

Better consult with Thomas first. Once I wanted to fix this issue. But he didn't want to touch that code. I forgot the exact objection. :)

--- End quote ---

Thomas ?

--- End quote ---

Yes!!

Jenna:

--- Quote from: Biplab on July 28, 2009, 05:20:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 05:18:38 pm ---Thomas ?

--- End quote ---

Yes!!

--- End quote ---

I just cried for him, so he can not overread it, if he looks through unread topics.

MortenMacFly:

--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 05:27:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: Biplab on July 28, 2009, 05:20:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on July 28, 2009, 05:18:38 pm ---Thomas ?

--- End quote ---
Yes!!

--- End quote ---
I just cried for him, so he can not overread it, if he looks through unread topics.

--- End quote ---
LOL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

squalyl:
dear codeblocks team I love you!

Just noticed some new features in this nightly: automatic } when I type a {. That's lovely. It saves a lot of time.

BUT: what did you do with the patch that saved me, about SDCC and static libs?

here: http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,10741.msg73652.html#msg73652

I hoped it would be integrated in new nightlies  :cry:

(note : the change is fully OK, is there any reason not to integrate it in the main branch?)

crash report: http://www.mirari.fr/RUb0

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version