[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: old source tarballs

From: Valentin Villenave
Subject: Re: old source tarballs
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 00:05:50 +0100

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Umm, no?  I mean, literally no?  Other than the first+last
> releases of each stable branch, those files are gone.

Then I'm sorry to hear that. In case my honest opinion matters (hint:
it doesn't), I think you screwed up big time on this. It wouldn't have
taken much to do a local backup (hell, I could have launched a wget on
my server and we'd have a whole clone by now).

It obviously may not matter to you, but I still remember when Rune
needed to track something that had occured in 2.6 or earlier. I know
in an ideal world, we'd all be able to build any version at any given
time, but having old development binaries *can* be useful every now
and then. (It also allows regular users to bisect on their own and
narrow down a regression's appearance, which can save the devs quite
some time.)

And before you ask, no I'm not saying I could do a better job than you
in your other tasks within the LilyPond project :-)

> If you can
> find some old binaries on some old mirror, go for it... but the
> old middle-of-release binaries that used to be on are
> gone now.

(sigh) OK. Then I guess we'll have to make do with whatever's left.
(Or install old libraries/compilers in VMs if we have to try and
compile oldish intermediate versions.)

> I'm not planning on removing the .0 and .last stable release
> binaries, so don't worry about those.  Then again, there's no harm
> in grabbing a copy now just in case.

I'm wgetting them now (it's messed up but i'll clean it up later).
(Stable or not, I guess 2.6 and 2.4 binaries are gone too.)
In any case, I'll try and keep a mirror up-to-date on


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]