[Chandler-dev] Using svn instead of builds for tarballs?
vajda at osafoundation.org
Thu Nov 9 21:57:55 PST 2006
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
> We've been using the builds server to house both source and binary
> tarballs that we need in addition to the source code that is checked
> into svn. This was originally done because CVS is not so great with
> binary files. Now that we are using Subversion I think it is time to
> revisit this issue since the current way of doing things has quite a few
I'm not sure I follow you on the 'problems' list.
> * If svn is available, but builds is not, you may be unable to build
if svn is unavailable, you're also unable to build.
> * Tarballs are not versioned
They sure are, look at their names...
> * Tarballs are not protected from corruption/tampering when downloading
And svn checkouts are ? how so ?
> * Need separate accounts and tools to upgrade and deal with builds
That could be construed as an advantage...
> * There are probably other points... :)
As you can see, I'm unconvinced....
More information about the chandler-dev