CVS Tag for Mozila 1.7.13

Jeff Wieland

unread,

Mar 25, 2006, 10:16:00 PM3/25/06

to

I realize that 1.7.13 isn't scheduled for release now until around April 11.
I'd like to build the release candidate under Solaris 8, but the source isn't
in ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/nightly/1.7.13-candidates.
Does anyone know what CVS tag to use to pull the source?
--
Jeff Wieland

Johannes Kastl

unread,

Mar 26, 2006, 6:51:44 AM3/26/06

to

On 3/26/2006 4:16 AM Jeff Wieland wrote:

> Does anyone know what CVS tag to use to pull the source?

When I want to pull SM 1.0, I use MOZILLA_1_8_0_BRANCH (for SM 1.1a it
would be MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH), so I would guess MOZILLA_1_7_0_BRANCH,
but that is just a guess.

OJ
--
Love ist like Pi: Natural, irrational and very important.
(unknown)

Robert Marshall

unread,

Mar 26, 2006, 6:59:24 AM3/26/06

to

There's a MOZILLA_1_7_13_RELEASE tag, created around the same time as
FIREFOX_1_5_0_2_RC1 and FIREFOX_1_0_8_RC3, so that seems like your best bet.

Jeff Wieland

unread,

Mar 26, 2006, 8:49:01 AM3/26/06

to

Thanks! I'll try it!
--
Jeff

Jeff Wieland

unread,

Mar 26, 2006, 6:46:10 PM3/26/06

to

It looks like there are some bits missing from MOZILLA_1_7_13_RELEASE,
so far I've found some of modules/zlib are gone. I can probably just
use what's in 1.7.12 here instead, I'm thinking.
--
Jeff

Christian Biesinger

unread,

Mar 26, 2006, 8:33:01 PM3/26/06

to

Johannes Kastl wrote:
> When I want to pull SM 1.0, I use MOZILLA_1_8_0_BRANCH (for SM 1.1a it
> would be MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH), so I would guess MOZILLA_1_7_0_BRANCH,
> but that is just a guess.

The _0 thingy started with the 1.8 branch, so the right branch name is
MOZILLA_1_7_BRANCH. But, the right thing to do is use the tag (as
mentioned in another reply).

(I'm ignoring MOZILLA_1_0_0_BRANCH here, which was an accident and
identical to MOZILLA_1_0_BRANCH anyway)

Johannes Kastl

unread,

Mar 27, 2006, 5:46:04 AM3/27/06

to

On 03/27/2006 03:33 AM Christian Biesinger wrote:

> The _0 thingy started with the 1.8 branch, so the right branch name is
> MOZILLA_1_7_BRANCH. But, the right thing to do is use the tag (as
> mentioned in another reply).

> (I'm ignoring MOZILLA_1_0_0_BRANCH here, which was an accident and
> identical to MOZILLA_1_0_BRANCH anyway)

Thanks for the clarification, as I said it was just a guess.

OJ
--
'Are you Death?'
... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
(Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant)

Jeff Wieland

unread,

Mar 27, 2006, 8:20:29 PM3/27/06

to Johannes Kastl

Johannes Kastl wrote:
> On 03/27/2006 03:33 AM Christian Biesinger wrote:
>
>> The _0 thingy started with the 1.8 branch, so the right branch name is
>> MOZILLA_1_7_BRANCH. But, the right thing to do is use the tag (as
>> mentioned in another reply).
>
>> (I'm ignoring MOZILLA_1_0_0_BRANCH here, which was an accident and
>> identical to MOZILLA_1_0_BRANCH anyway)
>
> Thanks for the clarification, as I said it was just a guess.
>
> OJ

The MOZILLA_1_7_13_RELEASE definitely doesn't get all of the source. The
MOZILLA_1_7_BRANCH appears to, and the version appears to 1.7.13, so I'm
thinking thinking that it's what I need. Anyway, I'll know in a couple
of hours.
--
Jeff

Christian Biesinger

unread,

Mar 27, 2006, 8:24:28 PM3/27/06

to

Jeff Wieland wrote:
> The MOZILLA_1_7_13_RELEASE definitely doesn't get all of the source. The
> MOZILLA_1_7_BRANCH appears to, and the version appears to 1.7.13, so I'm
> thinking thinking that it's what I need. Anyway, I'll know in a couple
> of hours.

Well, 1_7_BRANCH may have additional patches compared to 1.7.13. You
should probably file a bug and cc preed about the missing files.

Jeff Wieland

unread,

Mar 30, 2006, 7:48:56 AM3/30/06

to

I have filed this bug. I didn't know who "preed" is, but I can see that
pr...@mozilla.com has been added to the cc: list.
--
Jeff Wieland