-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Berlin 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.
>
>
> apr, neon, etc are not ubiquitous enough that this is worth it. I know
> nobody who builds from nodeps, even those who *do* have it installed
> (which includes me).
I do! I haven't done a with-deps build in years!
However, I think that rc1 and rc2 have shown that the increased
imposition on testers of having to do 12-way verification (2 deps-types
* 2 fs * 3 ra), instead of 6-way verification (2 fs * 3 ra) is
intolerable - as evidenced by no single rc1 or rc2 tarball getting 3 sigs.
In the interests of getting a 1.3 release out before 2006, I think we
should maintain the status quo of previous releases (i.e. drop the
nodeps tarball entirely) for 1.3.x.
Long term, I think we should be thinking about dropping deps completely,
but enough people seem to be using the deps right now that that time is
not now.
Max.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFDgg5yfFNSmcDyxYARAlI5AKCxazFUMyHTnPpO/IfvLJfuSH9roACdHcCU
2uX9+m9pZGhZrtY3KbR+080=
=EaC6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 21 19:19:32 2005