On 28/09/10 22:19, Martin Hejl wrote: > To me it sounds (if we want to stay in line with the terms of use with > SF), that we either do that (but then, what actually _is_ a "binary > releases made via our File Release System or any other project > resource" - to me, it sounds like there'd have to be a new source > tarball for every new package checked into CVS and made available via > the packages page - if there is one for Bering uClibc 4 - if not, I > guess one could argue that if CVS isn't good enough for providing > source code, it doesn't qualify as a binary release either. But I'm > not a lawyer....), or look for some other means of hosting the source > and binaries. IMHO - 'binary release' means new distro version, not further minor updates - which may be decided as parts of pre-release current version. And yes, CVS isn't ehough good - for ex., mercurial and AFAIK git and svn can provide snapshot tarballs for any specified commit. So possible it'll be good to switch to more modern versioning system? If yes - what system we will use? Mercurial IMHO less flexible than svn/git, and for me git looks more preferrable - but I can miss some features, so I think that all members who interested in code contribution or have experience with some versioning systems should take part in this decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
