On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jeremy Audet <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Just for clarification, What branch will Nightly be built from? And Won't Nightly and Master be getting the build from same branch (master) majority of the time?
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
