On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 11:35 -0500, Jeremy Audet 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'm already working on having the repo on koji generated in such a way that it rsyncs nicely over to the destination at fedorapeople with little effort. > > 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. I too like 'master' over 'nightly'. +1 to using this term instead for what we consider the 'nightly' process. (as we do, on frequent occasion, rebuild these packages before the next 'night' is to be ran to help with many things)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
