-
Sat 2020.01.11
That method #2 post seemed consistent with revisions of Pico I followed two years ago. Made the assumption was still the means today.
While I'll agree that L98 is coded the way you describe, the only line that makes sense is L94-L95
'This may fail and give inconsistent results'
proven by the 8th date stamping for 2v04.83
383dfcc910ef082f4dfbf718277dbab2fcd9d924/ 2020-01-08 11:03http://www.espruino.com/binaries/travis/383dfcc910ef082f4dfbf718277dbab2fcd9d924/
which occurs on th 7th before 2v04.84
4da6614bdda20162af5ea845b0d8f73804da6c31/ 2020-01-07 16:47http://www.espruino.com/binaries/travis/4da6614bdda20162af5ea845b0d8f73804da6c31/
Very unlikely the incremental commit decreases as date/time moves forward.
L94 reigns and does fail as documented.
Only spent a few minutes attempting to locate 2v04.294 with no luck.
You are reading a single comment by @fanoush and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Robin
@fanoush
I think .84 is older than .294. It is number of commits after latest release, see https://github.com/espruino/Espruino/blob/master/Makefile#L98
Current changelog is here https://github.com/espruino/Espruino/blob/master/ChangeLog