| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 16:38 -0400, Dylan Carlson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue October 12 2004 15:09, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The proposal is to get infrastructure to provide a temporary location |
| 4 |
> > for developers to upload patches which are necessary to be immediately |
| 5 |
> > available to users. This space would be writable by all CVS developers |
| 6 |
> > and would be accessible to the world via http. Developers would use |
| 7 |
> > this space for temporary storage only for patches which are |
| 8 |
> > created/rolled in-house. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Here here. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Regardless of what we agree the pathname should be, it's a good idea. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I'd also like to see a naming convention of patches established. (crowd |
| 15 |
> moans: "not more red tape!") OK, perhaps more of a guideline/best |
| 16 |
> practices than a requirement. Right now I don't believe there is one... |
| 17 |
> is there? It would be refreshing to look at that patch repository and see |
| 18 |
> clarity and consistency in naming, as that will be a large listing of |
| 19 |
> files. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I believe the current, albeit unwritten, rule is to name the patch as |
| 22 |
${P}-name.patch just to make them easier to locate. As for the large |
| 23 |
listing, that is very doubtful, as this is just temporary holding until |
| 24 |
the patches hit the distfiles mirrors. No patch would survive longer |
| 25 |
than 7 days in this "holding pen" before it would be removed in favor of |
| 26 |
our distfiles mirrors. This would also mean making tarballs out of all |
| 27 |
patches, as vapier mentioned earlier, to keep there from being any |
| 28 |
ASCII/Binary download problems. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 32 |
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager |
| 33 |
Games - Developer |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives