Roland Mainz wrote: > 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...
Yup, this is just for the YYYYMMDD deliveries - and the changelogs will still be generated. I'm only removing the source tarballs and Mercurial bundles. cheers, steve -- stephen lau // stevel at sun.com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development
