Re: Rolling rc3 - tarball issue

On 11/21/05, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> Apparently, we need some official resolution on the issue of what to
> name the tarballs, and whether to keep the double tarball (deps and
> nodeps) regime.
>
> I'm +1 on naming the "deps" tarball as regular, and make "nodeps" be the
> suffixed one.
>
> I'm +1 on dropping the nodeps tarball entirely.

+1 on both of those options, leaning towards dropping the nodeps
entirely because I just don't think it's worth the hassle and sticking
with the current state of the union can't be that bad.

Either way, we need to resolve this right now. This release has seen
far too many delays as it is, and we need a tarball we can actually
release to users.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 21 18:56:34 2005