Re: Git Vs. Svn for a project which *must* distribute binaries too.
- From
Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 4, 2007, 22:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <46a038f90706041529p224c5d44u32f7a1a358d058f1@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <5971b1ba0706040838nc9ea7c7h54a57d4235d53bcf@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/5/07, Bryan Childs <godeater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh lord no - I never meant to imply that we'd be checking those > binaries in, I just meant to hi-light that we need a central > repository to build those binaries from - otherwise we'd end up with a
If your infrastructure to build the binaries is automated, you can easily script the build for new incoming commits. The output of git-describe is really useful for this if you are going to name your builds `git describe`-<arch>.tar.gz.
OTOH, commit is different from push (vs SVN where both are one op), and that means that when using git you can present a large change as a better-explained patch-series. That's actually a good practice for new development, and it might not make sense to have literally one-build-per-commit.
Maybe I'd enable auto-builds for maintenance/bugfixes branches, and on other (experimental/devel) branches only auto-build commits selected explicitly (tagged?).
cheers,
martin