[git pasky] tarball question

[git pasky] tarball question

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

Hi,

I understand why you have the git-pasky-0.6.x.tar.bz2 tarballs with
the .git database included as well (btw, great stuff renaming it to
something more distributable), but its going to be a pita for users of
source based distro's like us (Gentoo), as well as our mirrors if it
gets much bigger. (Already asked r3pek to add it to portage).

How about ripping the .git directory from the next release, and just
have a un-numbered tarball (like you used to) that have the latest
snapshot of the .git directory for those that want to do git-pasky
development?  Should even make things easier your side, as you could
just do a cron to update it one a day/whatever.


Thanks,

-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [git pasky] tarball question

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I understand why you have the git-pasky-0.6.x.tar.bz2 tarballs with
> the .git database included as well (btw, great stuff renaming it to
> something more distributable), but its going to be a pita for users of
> source based distro's like us (Gentoo), as well as our mirrors if it
> gets much bigger. (Already asked r3pek to add it to portage).

Ah good, I was already makeing a ebuild for it, I'll let others do it
then :)

> How about ripping the .git directory from the next release, and just
> have a un-numbered tarball (like you used to) that have the latest
> snapshot of the .git directory for those that want to do git-pasky
> development?  Should even make things easier your side, as you could
> just do a cron to update it one a day/whatever.

Why?  The .git directory doesn't hurt anything that gentoo would do, we
would just update the ebuild for the major releases.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [git pasky] tarball question

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 11:23 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:

Hi,

> > How about ripping the .git directory from the next release, and just
> > have a un-numbered tarball (like you used to) that have the latest
> > snapshot of the .git directory for those that want to do git-pasky
> > development?  Should even make things easier your side, as you could
> > just do a cron to update it one a day/whatever.
> 
> Why?  The .git directory doesn't hurt anything that gentoo would do, we
> would just update the ebuild for the major releases.
> 

True, but the tarball was already nearing 2mb (the one before the
versioned tarballs I still have here, is about 1.8mb), and I was just
afraid of what might have happened size wise by the time it hit version
1.0 :)


Thanks,

-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [git pasky] tarball question

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 04:31:43PM CEST, I got a letter
where Martin Schlemmer <azarah@nosferatu.za.org> told me that...
> Hi,

Hi,

> I understand why you have the git-pasky-0.6.x.tar.bz2 tarballs with
> the .git database included as well (btw, great stuff renaming it to
> something more distributable), but its going to be a pita for users of
> source based distro's like us (Gentoo), as well as our mirrors if it
> gets much bigger. (Already asked r3pek to add it to portage).

yes; that was actually the plan, it's just that my memory is so
volatile...

> How about ripping the .git directory from the next release, and just
> have a un-numbered tarball (like you used to) that have the latest
> snapshot of the .git directory for those that want to do git-pasky
> development?  Should even make things easier your side, as you could
> just do a cron to update it one a day/whatever.

Does it actually make sense to keep a tarball with history? Just build
git-pasky and do git init. (Or rsync it manually.)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor

Re: [git pasky] tarball question

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1402 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 00:42 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 04:31:43PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Martin Schlemmer <azarah@nosferatu.za.org> told me that...
> > Hi,
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > I understand why you have the git-pasky-0.6.x.tar.bz2 tarballs with
> > the .git database included as well (btw, great stuff renaming it to
> > something more distributable), but its going to be a pita for users of
> > source based distro's like us (Gentoo), as well as our mirrors if it
> > gets much bigger. (Already asked r3pek to add it to portage).
> 
> yes; that was actually the plan, it's just that my memory is so
> volatile...
> 

Yep, saw before you posted about the change in URL, thanks.

> > How about ripping the .git directory from the next release, and just
> > have a un-numbered tarball (like you used to) that have the latest
> > snapshot of the .git directory for those that want to do git-pasky
> > development?  Should even make things easier your side, as you could
> > just do a cron to update it one a day/whatever.
> 
> Does it actually make sense to keep a tarball with history? Just build
> git-pasky and do git init. (Or rsync it manually.)
> 

Well, I did not know about kernel.org hosting it, so I thought it might
help due to your reasons for initially tarballing the whole thing =)


Thanks,

-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]