On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
We've been using the builds server to house both source and binary tarballs that we need in addition to the source code that is checked into svn. This was originally done because CVS is not so great with binary files. Now that we are using Subversion I think it is time to revisit this issue since the current way of doing things has quite a few problems:
I'm not sure I follow you on the 'problems' list.
* If svn is available, but builds is not, you may be unable to build chandler
if svn is unavailable, you're also unable to build.
* Tarballs are not versioned
They sure are, look at their names...
* Tarballs are not protected from corruption/tampering when downloading
And svn checkouts are ? how so ?
* Need separate accounts and tools to upgrade and deal with builds
That could be construed as an advantage...
* There are probably other points... :)
As you can see, I'm unconvinced.... Andi.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
