Re: How to administer the binaries

On 11/25/2011 10:02 AM, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Ian Silvester<[email protected]>  wrote:
>
>> So I can use the simple read-only CVS access to grab the current source
>> and build a binary, but what's the procedure for providing it back to
>> the project for hosting? And what if I'd like to store some the
>> configuration files back in CVS? I suppose what I'm asking is, should I
>> have read-write CVS access, since I am aware that if I start with a
>> read-only working copy then I can't commit changes from that; I'd need
>> to create a replacement working copy if/when I have read/write access?

You can use Fabian's idea with git below; or you could provide 
diffs/patches for the changes you've made.  That would make it easy for 
any of us to try the patches out before commitment.

> Not necessarily, changing the repository information should suffice.
>
> Personally I would recommend that you do not work directly
> with a CVS checkout, though, but use git-cvsimport and do
> the development with git.
>
> That's what I've been doing myself for several years now and it
> has improved my work flow quite a bit. I currently have 35 branches
> in my local Privoxy repository and having to maintain them in CVS
> would waste a lot of time.
>
> If you were using git, you could also easily send patches to this
> list for review and wouldn't require CVS write permissions right away,
> which I currently wouldn't feel comfortable to grant, especially while
> the CVS commit mails are down (and I have no stable Internet connection).
>
> Importing from CVS into another distributed version control system
> (like Mercurial) should work, too, but I'm less familiar with it
> and probably wouldn't be much help in case of problems.
>
> We also have the following TODO list item for a while now:
> | 54) Move away from CVS to a more modern revision control system.
> |     Find out if there are any objection against going with Git.
> |     Using Git would also have the advantage that SF now pretents
> |     to support it, so we could do it independently from 53).
>
> I would feel more comfortable if the OS X binary packages
> weren't uploaded to the SF project site right away, unless
> they are built by David based on your changes or at least
> tested and reviewed by people we already know.

Quite right.  Those aforementioned patches would be an easy way to get 
that done.  I use Eclipse myself, and it has an easy "generate patch" 
menu option... I'd imagine xcode does as well.

 >> P.S. Question for you David - so far as you know will Xcode running
 >> on 10.6 on an Intel MacBook allow me to create binaries for PPC
 >> and/or 10.4 targets?

Well, yes and no.  There are a lot of differences in the way the code 
needs to be installed on all levels of OSX... 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, and now 
10.7.  So while you can generate a binary, generating an installable 
package is an entirely different matter.

- David

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure 
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, 
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this 
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d