I broke trunk

> On 21 November 2013 21:33, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Sorry guys.
>>
>> MonticelloConfigurations-fbs.118's postscript references a
>> non-existent class. How do I fix this mess? I pushed a new version 119
>> with the correct postscript, and a new update-fbs.266 which references
>> version 119. I'd hoped that would be sufficient, but not.
>>
>> One option might be to delete 118 & 119, and re-issue a new 120 that's
>> not broken?
>
> Wow, that was dumb. Updating the config map's the right answer, but
> seriously, I need to get some sleep or something. Three versions of a
> package to get something right is two too many.
>
> frank
>

> On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It's always hairy messing with the Config stuff since the update
> process also depends on it.
>
> Thanks for persevering and getting it right.
>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 21 November 2013 21:33, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Sorry guys.
>>>
>>> MonticelloConfigurations-fbs.118's postscript references a
>>> non-existent class. How do I fix this mess? I pushed a new version 119
>>> with the correct postscript, and a new update-fbs.266 which references
>>> version 119. I'd hoped that would be sufficient, but not.
>>>
>>> One option might be to delete 118 & 119, and re-issue a new 120 that's
>>> not broken?
>>
>> Wow, that was dumb. Updating the config map's the right answer, but
>> seriously, I need to get some sleep or something. Three versions of a
>> package to get something right is two too many.
>>
>> frank
>