> > Hosting packages in just one place is simpler than hosting packages in >> multiple places. There's >> less room for error when the simpler thing is done. >> > > It shouldn't be too hard to set up. >
Fair enough. I also think that hosting packages on one location helps to prevent end-user confusion. But we can host packages wherever is appropriate, and I don't have a terribly strong opinion here. > I would probably want to keep it in a 'nightly' or 'master' > folder instead of a versioned folder, to help aign the intent of > explicitly distinguishing this > workflow from others. Thoughts? Yes, please. If there's a directory called "2.15," then I think that there's a 2.15 release. If there's a directory called "nightly" or "master," then I think that there are nightly builds, or builds from master. To nitpick: I like the idea "master" a little bit more. What if we improved our development and build processes so that there were two builds in a day? "master" reflects the idea that the builds come from the master branch, whereas "nightly" reflects the idea that there's one build per day.
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
