From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:29:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Git Vs. Svn for a project which *must* distribute binaries too.
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