cubicweb #4255644 Repository for update [rejected]
Hi, I'm about to upgrade CubicWeb, what I choose master repository or review? http://hg.logilab.org/master/ or http://hg.logilab.org/review/ Thanks for help | |
| priority | normal |
|---|---|
| type | task |
| done in | <not specified> |
| load | 0.000 |
| load left | 0.000 |
| closed by | <not specified> |
similar entities
- cubicweb-mercurial-server mercurial-server integration cube
- cubicweb-vcsfile component to integrate version control systems data into the CubicWeb framework
- cubicweb #2709702 allow to pass instance creation options as command line arguments
- TheCubicWebBook #656194 CW Administration: how to give dynamic permissions
- apycot #2037577 Optimise clone of mercurial repositories
[see all]
Comments
-
2014/08/17 13:31, written by fcayre
add commentThis kind of subject would better be discussed on cubicweb@lists.cubicweb.org (please subscribe on http://lists.cubicweb.org).
As you may know, the preferred way we distribute CubicWeb is using Debian packages (see http://docs.cubicweb.org/admin/setup).
If you install from source and mercurial, I would recommend using mercurial guestrepo extension and the corresponding configuration of CubicWeb and its closest dependencies http://hg.logilab.org/grshells/grshell-cubicweb.
You will notice that is uses the master repositories, which is recommended. The review repositories contain draft changesets, while master repositories only contain public changesets.
Note that in a production environment you should only use tagged revisions of CubicWeb and dependencies, which should always be public anyway.