Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] the update process

sm-discuss AT

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jaka Kranjc <smgl AT>
  • To: sm-discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] the update process
  • Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:44:38 +0100

On Thursday 04 of December 2008 15:34:17 Vasil Yonkov wrote:
> reason I actually thought the rsync update will be faster :) Moreover, with
> rsync method, the authentication failed every time (might be a temporary
> issue), and with git method, Sorcery was telling me every time "there is no
> verification method!". Well, I thought git has a built in sha1 checksum
> functionality. Am I wrong?
That warning means that *we* don't provide means of verification for the git
download. For example, tarballs are GPG signed, but this is impractical for
sources coming directly from a SCM.

> This raises an another question - after git is such a good method for
> update, why do we stick to the tarballs? It's a sluggish method. I don't
> know how it is on the server side, but I'm pretty sure that it uses a lot
> of bandwidth (compared to git) - everyone, on every update have to download
> around 6MB.
I am not familiar with our current server setup, but when git was initially
rolled out, the admin didn't want it to be open to the wide public (traffic
limits). At that time also sorcery support was lacking.

> Wouldn't be easier to branch the codex with git and make it the default
> update method?
That's mostly up to our server guys. The codex is already in git, that's how
we work with it. ;)

ps, don't set Reply-To when on mailing-lists.

We cannot command nature except by obeying her. --Sir Francis Bacon
Have a sourcerous day!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page