Closed
Bug 240460
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Section 3.10: Upgrading - outdated examples
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Documentation, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.16
People
(Reporter: justdave, Assigned: Niels.Reedijk)
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
9.24 KB,
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
9.29 KB,
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Example 3.1 and 3.2 both have the old FTP urls prior to the move out of AOL's
servers.
Also, this probably should (maybe?) be updated to use 2.18 as examples instead
of 2.16.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•21 years ago
|
||
the ftp urls portion at least will apply to both branches. We could use 2.16.6
instead of 2.16.2 as an example in the 2.16 branch probably.
Flags: blocking2.18+
Flags: blocking2.16.6+
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•21 years ago
|
||
This is the update to the 2.16 branch. It changes the release to 2.16.6 and has
the proper ftp URLs.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•21 years ago
|
||
Updates the release to 2.18.1. I wasn't entirely sure if this was the best
option, however, as there won't be an example with patches when 2.18.0 is out,
it would seem best to use this revision as an example.
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 147868 [details] [diff] [review]
Update for the 2.18 branch
r=gerv; this seems fine.
Gerv
Attachment #147868 -
Flags: review+
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 147867 [details] [diff] [review]
Update for the 2.16 branch
r=gerv; this one too.
Gerv
Attachment #147867 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #147867 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: approval2.18?
Flags: approval2.16?
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
the 2.18 patch applies cleanly on the trunk, it should go there, too.
Flags: blocking2.16.7+
Flags: blocking2.16.6+
Flags: approval2.18?
Flags: approval2.18+
Flags: approval2.16?
Flags: approval2.16+
Flags: approval+
Whiteboard: patch awaiting checkin
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
reassigning to patch author
I'm assuming you don't have cvs write access and probably need someone to check
this in for you?
Assignee: documentation → n.reedijk
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Yes, please check it in for me.
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
Checked into trunk, 2.18 branch, and 2.16 branch. Thanks Niels!
Checking in docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v <--
administration.xml
new revision: 1.34.2.1; previous revision: 1.34
done
Checking in ../bztip/docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v <--
administration.xml
new revision: 1.37; previous revision: 1.36
done
Checking in ../bz216/docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v <--
administration.xml
new revision: 1.13.2.14; previous revision: 1.13.2.13
done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: patch awaiting checkin
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
Myk: you need to include in the CVS log the name and the email of the person
that wrote the patch if you're not commiting your own code (per the CVS
contributor fax text, section 4a -
http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/CVS-Contributor-Form.pdf :) ).
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
> Myk: you need to include in the CVS log the name and the email of the person
> that wrote the patch if you're not commiting your own code
Quite right. I usually do but slipped up here. Sorry about the omission.
Updated•12 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•