Re: Adrian Vondendriesch 2016-04-05 <[email protected]> > On 05.04.2016 06:21, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > Its not a particularly high volume project, so for RHEL we've been > > sufficiently happy with hash based tarballs. > > Ok, thanks for the reply. I think we will go this way, too.
Hi, I've been browsing the commit history of sbd, and my impression was that there is much more going on than what I'd call "low volume". The reason why Debian is usually asking for release tarballs is that we then have some "this version is ok for general use" statement from the authors, while for git-hash-snapshots, we can never really be sure that we haven't hit a spot that is WIP between two development sprints. Or a case of "there's this open pull request that should definitely be included, it's just not done yet". Or "the last commit in git HEAD does [not] warrant a new package release". That said, we'd just need a tag on github, the tarball would then automatically be available in the /releases pages there. We could also point the new-upstream-version-available machinery there to get notified about new versions programmatically. (Driven by "debian/watch" files.) To get the package started, we can of course use a snapshot tarball as Adrian said, but long-term I'd really prefer real releases. Would that be arrangeable? Thanks, Christoph _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
