Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:25:32 +0100
Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:12:43 +0100, Christopher Aillon scripst:
> But also keep in mind that much of the current package workflow has
> been defined by the limitations of CVS. Our current faux-branching
> scheme was in part done because of CVS, for example.
> [...]
> Returning to your original question, which I'll paraphrase as "what do
> we gain by moving away from CVS?" Not much. A small number of users
> will take advantage of the features that the new VCS gives them.
I think the thing we need to loose is the box where we keep our work-
flow. So for example, could somebody explain why in the time or DVCSs we
still have tarball-based packaging?
So you can verify that you're using the upstream source as it was
released, and not some custom fork of the code base.
I think Matej was implying we should point to the upstream repo and
tagname instead of a tarball. Then koji would checkout code from
upstream without relying on us downloading, then subsequently uploading
a tarball via make upload.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
