We use VCS because we're using SvnPubSub to publish to the Foundation-wide distribution directory. I believe this makes the sysadmin stuff easier. And I guess it adds an audit trail for the things we're shipping.
On 15 March 2013 16:28, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2013, at 17:22 , matt j. sorenson <m...@sorensonbros.net> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> <Justin Timberlake voice> > >> > >> 1,000,000 commits isn't cool. You know what's cool? 1,000,000,000. > >> > >> </Justin Timberlake voice> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 14 March 2013 19:16, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Mar 14, 2013, at 01:05 , Dave Cottlehuber <d...@jsonified.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 13 March 2013 23:18, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> Dave, > >>>>> > >>>>> For rc.2, there is no need to pull the binaries. > >>>>> > >>>>> We should be leaving them in the Subversion /dev directory. > >>>> > >>>> Point taken, but thats going to be one fat svn repo in 6 months time. > >>>> Just saying! > >>> > >>> “Revision 1456616” > >>> — svn.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> NS > >> > > > > right I'm not sure why large transient binary files need revision > > control... we really ought to have a sharepoint site for those > > This is to easier distribute binaries over release mirrors. > > I agree it is odd that we do this for RCs, but Noah checked with Infra, > and that’s what we got (afaik). Either way, no biggie. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > > > > > /me ducks and hides > > -- > > matt > > -- NS
