On Monday 20 December 2010 21:55:20 Paul Davis wrote: > i don't really want to argue this too much, but i do think that its > pretty fallacious to propose that because Arch makes it relatively > easy (like gentoo) to wrap the use of an svn repository in a > package-related system that users of the result of this process will > understand that there is really no difference between an explicit > checkout of svn and management of one's repository, and the > package-related tool version. > > the alpha testers for a3 to date have all been extremely clear that > you don't bother checking it out unless you intend to (a) get on the > commit mailing list (b) regularly svn update (possibly a few times a > day on days when they are testing). i understand (now) that there is > nothing about the pkgbuild system in Arch that prevents either of > these two from still being the case. however, i don't believe that > even a majority of people who use the method will understand the need > for (a) and (b) or even just the general nature of what they're > connected to. > > there were 16 commits to svn within the last 20 hours. some of these > were deep changes to the way things work (though hopefully not > resulting in any visible breakage, we don't know, which is why its not > released yet). do you really think that arch linux users who are using > a pkgbuild to try this out have any grasp of what is going on? > > maybe the answer, your answer, is "yes". i'm quite a bit more skeptical. Should such scripts add a cron job to do the updates several times a day? Or one that runs hourly and checks for some flag on the ardour site to know if it needs to update automatically? Asking from a level of ignorance here. all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
