Re: LDAP SDK and source repositories

Rich Megginson wrote:

> Mark Banner wrote:
>> On 27/07/2009 17:25, Rich Megginson wrote:
> Would this tag the entire repo, or just the c-sdk portion?  Or does it 
> really matter?  I know with git, tags are cheap and easy to manage, so 
> it doesn't really matter.

Entire repo, but tagging is cheap/easy with hg too.

> If it doesn't matter that non-c-sdk code will be tagged with a c-sdk 
> release tag, then it doesn't matter if the c-sdk repo is completely 
> separate.

Though it doesn't matter, I would find this odd:
probably acceptable with c-sdk in a directory repo,
but unexpected in the comm-central repo.

> With git, I can use the git archive command to produce a source tarball 
> from a specific tag or changeset (commit).  But I think that archives 

Same:
hg archive [OPTION]... DEST
create an unversioned archive of a repository revision

> the entire repository, not a subdirectory.  If that's not possible, then 

Maybe
  -I --include    include names matching the given patterns
  -X --exclude    exclude names matching the given patterns
would help?

> we can just use clone and update to get the local source repo in the 
> right state, then just use tar directly against the source repo.

(Yes: again, the bigger the repo is the odder it feels.)

> For the perl and java sdks, they can be separate, since (afaik) no other 
> mozilla component uses them.  For the c-sdk, as long as we can preserve 
> the ability to develop and make c-sdk releases independent of 
> t-bird/seamonkey, if it makes life easier for t-bird/seamonkey 
> developers to have the code embedded in their larger source code 
> repositories, I think that would be fine.

Personally, I would think the 'c-sdk in comm-central', either as the 
main repo or as just an import, was only a workaround solution in case 
you would have wanted to continue with cvs. Then not relevent anymore.
But maybe others think differently.