FYI

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

List:
One the download site:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/

1) Clicking on the "ofbiz-rel9.04-current.zip returns: "No Such
Resource", File not found.

2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a
downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of 814733.
If I want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04 file should I
look for? How do I know which of the files under the Nightly 9.04 builds
comes closest to matching the one I originally download (which isn't
there anymore.)?

Any clarity on this would be much appreciated.

Regards,
Ruth

[Christian Geisert]

Ruth Hoffman schrieb:

> 2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a
> downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of 814733.
> If I want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04 file should I
> look for? How do I know which of the files under the Nightly 9.04 builds
> comes closest to matching the one I originally download (which isn't
> there anymore.)?

Mmmmh, on 1st of January the svn revision was 894953 - so both of your
mentioned numbers don't make sense (to me at least ;-).
But if you want the revision from 1st of January you can check it out with
svn co -r {2010-01-01}
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release09.04


--
Christian

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Hi Christian:
Thanks. I didn't know I needed to use Subversion. I was hoping I could
just use the existing list of downloads to retrieve the version I needed.

So, just out of curiosity, why was the original file
(ofbiz-rel9.04-2009-903429.zip) I downloaded not on the list of
snapshots? Actually, now that I look, it still isn't on the list. Would
it be fair to say that the file naming convention, at least for the
nightly builds of release 9.04, is not of any use? Don't rely on it to
pick up older versions?

Regards
Ruth

Christian Geisert wrote:

> Ruth Hoffman schrieb:
>
>> 2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a
>> downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of
>> 814733. If I want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04
>> file should I look for? How do I know which of the files under the
>> Nightly 9.04 builds comes closest to matching the one I originally
>> download (which isn't there anymore.)?
>
> Mmmmh, on 1st of January the svn revision was 894953 - so both of your
> mentioned numbers don't make sense (to me at least ;-).
> But if you want the revision from 1st of January you can check it out
> with
> svn co -r {2010-01-01}
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release09.04
>
>

[Tim Ruppert]

I think we can simply go back to the same reasons that the files aren't perfectly provided by the ASF yet ... there were problems in the migration of services that have not been rectified yet.  It was certainly there just fine on the old server just fine.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Hi Christian:
> Thanks. I didn't know I needed to use Subversion. I was hoping I could just use the existing list of downloads to retrieve the version I needed.
>
> So, just out of curiosity, why was the original file (ofbiz-rel9.04-2009-903429.zip) I downloaded not on the list of snapshots? Actually, now that I look, it still isn't on the list. Would it be fair to say that the file naming convention, at least for the nightly builds of release 9.04, is not of any use? Don't rely on it to pick up older versions?
>
> Regards
> Ruth
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
>> Ruth Hoffman schrieb:
>>
>>> 2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of 814733. If I want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04 file should I look for? How do I know which of the files under the Nightly 9.04 builds comes closest to matching the one I originally download (which isn't there anymore.)?
>>
>> Mmmmh, on 1st of January the svn revision was 894953 - so both of your mentioned numbers don't make sense (to me at least ;-).
>> But if you want the revision from 1st of January you can check it out with
>> svn co -r {2010-01-01} http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release09.04
>>
>>

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Hi Tim:
If it is/was a migration problem, I was just curious. Going forward, I'm
interested in knowing if the file naming convention is suppose to be
consistent or if this was a one time glitch? That was my motivation for
asking the question.

Not trying to "point fingers". Honest.

Regards,
Ruth

Tim Ruppert wrote:

> I think we can simply go back to the same reasons that the files aren't perfectly provided by the ASF yet ... there were problems in the migration of services that have not been rectified yet.  It was certainly there just fine on the old server just fine.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>  
>> Hi Christian:
>> Thanks. I didn't know I needed to use Subversion. I was hoping I could just use the existing list of downloads to retrieve the version I needed.
>>
>> So, just out of curiosity, why was the original file (ofbiz-rel9.04-2009-903429.zip) I downloaded not on the list of snapshots? Actually, now that I look, it still isn't on the list. Would it be fair to say that the file naming convention, at least for the nightly builds of release 9.04, is not of any use? Don't rely on it to pick up older versions?
>>
>> Regards
>> Ruth
>>
>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>    
>>> Ruth Hoffman schrieb:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> 2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of 814733. If I want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04 file should I look for? How do I know which of the files under the Nightly 9.04 builds comes closest to matching the one I originally download (which isn't there anymore.)?
>>>>        
>>> Mmmmh, on 1st of January the svn revision was 894953 - so both of your mentioned numbers don't make sense (to me at least ;-).
>>> But if you want the revision from 1st of January you can check it out with
>>> svn co -r {2010-01-01} http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release09.04
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>
>  

[Tim Ruppert]

Oh - I didn't think you were pointing them - I'm going to get this fixed up sometime soon because it seems odd that the file creation is different - but it will require a full audit - which I hope will get done sometime this week.  Once this is fixed - we can cull together all of the information about the full site organization upgrades and go from there.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Hi Tim:
> If it is/was a migration problem, I was just curious. Going forward, I'm interested in knowing if the file naming convention is suppose to be consistent or if this was a one time glitch? That was my motivation for asking the question.
>
> Not trying to "point fingers". Honest.
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> I think we can simply go back to the same reasons that the files aren't perfectly provided by the ASF yet ... there were problems in the migration of services that have not been rectified yet.  It was certainly there just fine on the old server just fine.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ruppert
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Hi Christian:
>>> Thanks. I didn't know I needed to use Subversion. I was hoping I could just use the existing list of downloads to retrieve the version I needed.
>>>
>>> So, just out of curiosity, why was the original file (ofbiz-rel9.04-2009-903429.zip) I downloaded not on the list of snapshots? Actually, now that I look, it still isn't on the list. Would it be fair to say that the file naming convention, at least for the nightly builds of release 9.04, is not of any use? Don't rely on it to pick up older versions?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Ruth Hoffman schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>> 2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of 814733. If I want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04 file should I look for? How do I know which of the files under the Nightly 9.04 builds comes closest to matching the one I originally download (which isn't there anymore.)?
>>>>>        
>>>> Mmmmh, on 1st of January the svn revision was 894953 - so both of your mentioned numbers don't make sense (to me at least ;-).
>>>> But if you want the revision from 1st of January you can check it out with
>>>> svn co -r {2010-01-01} http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release09.04
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>
>>  

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Thanks for clearing this up for me. And for being so responsive!
Regards,
Ruth

Tim Ruppert wrote:

> Oh - I didn't think you were pointing them - I'm going to get this fixed up sometime soon because it seems odd that the file creation is different - but it will require a full audit - which I hope will get done sometime this week.  Once this is fixed - we can cull together all of the information about the full site organization upgrades and go from there.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>  
>> Hi Tim:
>> If it is/was a migration problem, I was just curious. Going forward, I'm interested in knowing if the file naming convention is suppose to be consistent or if this was a one time glitch? That was my motivation for asking the question.
>>
>> Not trying to "point fingers". Honest.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ruth
>>
>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>    
>>> I think we can simply go back to the same reasons that the files aren't perfectly provided by the ASF yet ... there were problems in the migration of services that have not been rectified yet.  It was certainly there just fine on the old server just fine.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ruppert
>>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Hi Christian:
>>>> Thanks. I didn't know I needed to use Subversion. I was hoping I could just use the existing list of downloads to retrieve the version I needed.
>>>>
>>>> So, just out of curiosity, why was the original file (ofbiz-rel9.04-2009-903429.zip) I downloaded not on the list of snapshots? Actually, now that I look, it still isn't on the list. Would it be fair to say that the file naming convention, at least for the nightly builds of release 9.04, is not of any use? Don't rely on it to pick up older versions?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ruth
>>>>
>>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>>> Ruth Hoffman schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>>>> 2) A nightly 9.04 current download I make on the 1st of January had a downloaded file version of: 903429 and a last updated version of 814733. If I want to recover this version which nightly build 9.04 file should I look for? How do I know which of the files under the Nightly 9.04 builds comes closest to matching the one I originally download (which isn't there anymore.)?
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Mmmmh, on 1st of January the svn revision was 894953 - so both of your mentioned numbers don't make sense (to me at least ;-).
>>>>> But if you want the revision from 1st of January you can check it out with
>>>>> svn co -r {2010-01-01} http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release09.04
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>  
>>>      
>
>