| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:03:48 -0800 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> No, it's just encouraging bad development practices. |
| 8 |
>> It seems like you're making a rather arbitrary judgment. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Not storing generated content under revision control is hardly an |
| 11 |
> arbitrary judgement. It's a well accepted software development bad |
| 12 |
> practice. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
In general, it's a good rule of thumb. However, in this case I think |
| 15 |
we have a justifiable exception to the rule. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>>> If you're concerned that setting up an rsync mirror is difficult, |
| 18 |
>>> why not make a tool that generates a tarball, including metadata, |
| 19 |
>>> for a repo, and have people run that on a cron and distribute it |
| 20 |
>>> via http? That's just as easy to host, and anyone running an |
| 21 |
>>> overlay big enough to make this impractical already has the |
| 22 |
>>> resources to deal with rsync instead... |
| 23 |
>> I'm not saying that it necessarily "difficult" or "beyond the |
| 24 |
>> resources", but it does create an unnecessary burden. I think that |
| 25 |
>> it adds a significant level of convenience to be able to use a |
| 26 |
>> version control system as a single distribution channel. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to |
| 29 |
> keep track of and store junk under version control. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I think you're making it out to be worse than it really is. Like I |
| 32 |
said, I think we have a justifiable exception to the rule. |
| 33 |
- -- |
| 34 |
Thanks, |
| 35 |
Zac |
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmPankACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNpnQCfVHgDPmfzUbfH6mIgmpUxcWda |
| 40 |
xkYAoJ1s+DEd873rpRpDQkck6ZP7pclr |
| 41 |
=K88a |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives