On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 17:13 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Erich Titl <[email protected]> schrieb: > > I do not see the necessity to keep a tarball in CVS.
Erich, Agreed. This is a legacy situation forced on us during SF service changes. Now that the FRS supports sub-directories storing packages in CVS for distribution is no longer necessary. Mater of fact, it's now against SF ToS to distribute this way. Thus the source tarball FRS requirement applicability to us. > ACK. IMHO we don't need tarballs at all. Just keep the complete > (uncompressed) trees in Git and selectively fetching them on-demand > (instead of a full clone). Enrico, We'll still need source tarballs for the SF FRS. > BTW: I'm keeping all sourcetrees and also the sysroot images > for my Briegel buildsystem [1] in git. Easier to manage and also > performs better than tarballs. I concur on this git structure. The problem is migrating our build tools to any new SCM. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
