You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
Varunram opened this issue
Dec 23, 2017
· 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
F2-bug 🐞The client fails to follow expected behavior.M4-core ⛓Core client code / Rust.P2-asap 🌊No need to stop dead in your tracks, however issue should be addressed as soon as possible.
Parity
version Parity/v0.1.0-unstable-82340c0-20171222/x86_64-linux-gnu/rustc1.22.1
Copyright 2015, 2016, 2017 Parity Technologies (UK) Ltd
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>.
I was on an older version of parity (v1.8.0) and wanted to upgrade versions to current master, so I pulled the repo and built the release to find the release version as 0.1.0. Now, I didn't know this was intended and proceeded to delete the repo, clean the db and rebuild only to find the same thing, when I realised that the version header was to be expected (or is it?).
I think this is highly confusing for people who build from source and comparing it to the release tag versions, most would consider it a bug. Could you include a small line in the README so that this behaviour is clearer?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Labels
F2-bug 🐞The client fails to follow expected behavior.M4-core ⛓Core client code / Rust.P2-asap 🌊No need to stop dead in your tracks, however issue should be addressed as soon as possible.
I was on an older version of parity (v1.8.0) and wanted to upgrade versions to current master, so I pulled the repo and built the release to find the release version as 0.1.0. Now, I didn't know this was intended and proceeded to delete the repo, clean the db and rebuild only to find the same thing, when I realised that the version header was to be expected (or is it?).
I think this is highly confusing for people who build from source and comparing it to the release tag versions, most would consider it a bug. Could you include a small line in the README so that this behaviour is clearer?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: