[Asterisk-Users] cvs stable and 1.0.5

[Michael George]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:49:02AM -0500, Clay Reiche wrote:
> Are you sure you're not looking at the date? 

Oh, you are probably right.  It is 1-0-03/01/05, so that's 1.0 as of 3/1/5,
not 1.0.3.

So it appears, then, that the cvs will only display 1.0 and the .x part is
only relevant for the releases.

I also noticed that it's not recommended that one use the CVS version (even of
stable) if not watching the asterisk-cvs list.  Maybe, then, it would be best
for me to revert to using the releases.

What is the opinion of the list?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Michael George
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:47 AM
> To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
> Subject: [Asterisk-Users] cvs stable and 1.0.5
> 
> I see that 1.0.5 is out.  I thought that if I am tracking cvs v1.0.x I would
> always get the newest releases.  However, I just did a fresh update and
> install from cvs stable and it reports as only being v1.0.3.
> 
> Should I just be using the tarballs rather than the cvs -r 1_0?  Or maybe my
> initial cvs was incorrect?

-- 
-M

There are 10 kinds of people in this world:
	Those who can count in binary and those who cannot.