Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote: >On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 12:08, Wim Fournier wrote: > >>I just installed the cvs version of the w3c validator. After wrestling >>through getting it to work [and failing]. > >[...] I guess you're running the HEAD version of validator? I >wouldn't recommend that (of course not knowing your intentions) for >anything else but validator development, it's in a unstable state >currently, with some biggish changes already happened and AFAICT >some coming up. See validator-0_6_0-branch instead if you're >setting up a validator for validating stuff :) Yes. HEAD is more or less guaranteed to be broken at any given point in time. Stable code is branched off towards a release, such as the currently stable "validator-0_6_0-branch". You can get it by giving cvs: cvs get -r validator-0_6_0-branch validator >Yes, the branches should really be documented more prominently on >validator.w3.org (if they're documented at all at the moment...). They aren't documented and, worse, the source download page points people at HEAD instead of the branch. :-( -- By definition there is _no_way_ any problem can be my fault. Any problems you think you can find in my code are in your imagination. If you continue with such derranged imaginings then I may be forced to perform corrective brain surgery... with an axe! -- Stephen HarrisReceived on Friday, 13 December 2002 01:02:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:07 GMT