Mike on 29.09.2010 20:17, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 19:57 +0200, Martin Hejl wrote: >> Hi kp, >> >>> (btw: the issue started with DavidMBrookes question, if sources should go >>> into >>> cvs or not? The discussion drifted away - any ideas on that topic?) >> I'd say yes - it will be easier that way to provide a source tarball >> (whatever that has to include remains to be seen) if it's decided we >> need to, but maybe more importantly, buildtool will not break if the >> location of a source changes upstream. As a bonus, it makes it easier to >> build things offline - just make a cvs checkout of the whole src path, >> and everything needed for building the toolchain and packages is right >> there and can be built without internet access. >> >> I just don't know how happy SF will be, if we put tons of (additional) >> binaries in CVS. > > Martin, > I don't think SF will have a major issue with this change. However, > they'd likely prefer we migrate to a SCM that handles binaries better.
We have SVN as a versioning system and all that happens is that any binary crap just lands there and produces an enormous binary pile of it. Correct me, but I believe the S in SCM means 'source' I do not see the necessity to keep a tarball in CVS. cheers Erich ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
