Stephen Lau wrote: > Richard Lowe wrote: [snip] > > Well, the plan Steve outlined above would still do the per-build source > > tarballs, and of course, it's always possible for you to merge up the > > svn repository based on an hg clone (I can't think of any reason it > > wouldn't be, anyway). > > Okay, so starting with today's delivery - I've tossed the Mercurial > bundles. I'll keep delivering the source tarball for now while we get > input from the ksh93 & polaris teams. > > ksh93 & polaris teams: Is it okay if we stop doing the 'nightly' (neh: > weekly) source tarball deliveries? It seems redundant (in both time and > space) now that we have the Mercurial mirror up.
What about the Subversion mirror at svn.genunix.org ? IMO it be kept alive since mercurial support in other tools (like source browsers, code scanners, bugzilla etc.) is non-existant (which is still an understatment) while subversion support comes usually right after CVS support for these tools. > I will continue to > deliver the build-synchronised source tarballs. Just for clarification: You only want to kill the "YYYMMDD"-source tarballs/changelog/etc. stuff and the normal B[1-9][0-9]-stuff will still be shipped ? If that's the case it's Ok for me... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
