On 27/07/2009 17:25, Rich Megginson wrote:
Moving to Mercurial is fine with me. I've been using git now for quite
some time and have really grown to like how much better it is than CVS.
I understand hg is similar to git. As far as the repo layout, it doesn't
matter to me if the c-sdk has its own top level repo or is part of a
larger repo, as long as it is easy to
1) checkout just the c-sdk
hg clone http://hg.mozilla.org/whatever/it/is
2) build just the c-sdk
As normal ;-)
3) tag individual and separate c-sdk releases
hg tag -r <changeset> MY_TAG
I'm not quite sure what you mean by separate c-sdk releases.
4) produce individual source code releases of the c-sdk
You can:
hg clone ....
hg update -r MY_TAG
Then you could zip it up, which would include the history, or I expect
we could probably copy one of the source tar ball commands from the
mozilla-central/comm-central build systems that would get you just the
source files.
Rich, so are you saying you would be happy to split the different SDKs
across repositories? Or would you prefer them all in one?
The only thing I can think of with having them all-in-one is that one
tag would tag all the files in the repository, but I guess that isn't
really an issue.
From a comm-central view point I think we could cope with either,
although if we did an all-in-one I'd probably think about moving the
xpcom sdk back to the LDAP repository as that would also help building
binary extensions against xulrunner with LDAP.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-ldap mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-ldap
