Re: [PATCH 1/4] wayland/weston/libinput: Upgrade to 1.6.0 -> 1.8.0

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1549 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 08:19:58AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> 
> > On Jun 26, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 3 June 2015 at 22:21, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com <mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > Can you explain why? The revision looks like 0.16.0 release.
> > 
> > its easy to develop libinput and prepare/test upstream patches since all upstreams want the patches against their latest master and its easy to switch to AUTOREV locally and do it.
> > 
> > That's not a great reason and I'm against using git fetches when there's perfectly good tarballs available.
> > 
> 
> From a system integrators point of view, I agree with your sentiments. From a developers point of view not so much. We already have many recipes already fetching from git and more and more switching to use it see qt5 lately, there are perfectly fine tarballs released for QT5 too, just because its simpler to developer and integrate packages.

I partially agree, but qt5 example is a bit different, because we have
many local patches for qt5 (qtbase, qtdeclarative) even more in various
deployment layers and we had 2 sets of recipes and patches (for tarballs
and for git recipes) - from that I choose less evil option of git
recipes to make the maintenance/testing a bit easier.

So for simple projects with only a few or no patches in metadata I don't
mind using git fetches, but also don't see huge benefit of using them.

Regards,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]