Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: git-able spells

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Treeve Jelbert <treeve AT scarlet.be>
  • To: "Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik" <ruskie AT codemages.net>
  • Cc: "sm, discuss" <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: git-able spells
  • Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:51:05 +0100

On Friday 30 October 2009 09:22:51 you wrote:
> :2009-10-30T09:08:Treeve Jelbert:
> :
> > There are several spells on my system where I have to use a svn checkout,
> > or snapshot tarball, because:
> >
> > . no stable tarball
> > . need new features
> > . fix build problems
> >
> > In some cases the snapshot tarballs are large and change frequently,
> > causing long download times.
> >
> > I have recently discovered that all the spells which I use in this
> > category already, or soon will, have git repositories avaliable.
> >
> > This tempts me to try something which I have considered for a while.
> >
> > Make these spells git-able.
> > . DOWNLOAD will clone/update a local git repo
> > . PRE_BUILD: will checkout the required branch (master, version x.y.z,
> > ...) and create some symlinks.
> > . one spell can support multiple branches
> > . can no longer verify checksums, unless I calculate the hash of a branch
> > after a clean checkout, ignoring everything in .git
>
> You are aware that git is fast to download and that with the latest
> stable sorcery it has proper branch support so you no longer need the
> hacks.
>
> Also there is a git_local:// url_handler as well ;) So DOWNLOAD and
> PRE_BUILD really wouldn't be needed. And it would have proper
> multibranch support. Though I'm opposed to multiversioned spells if a
> specific version is needed for a specific spell current examples of this
> bad behaviour are:
> fox
> glib2
>
> There might be others. If there is a need for a specific version said
> spell should be separated into a $SPELL-$BRANCH spell.
>
> If I understand you correctly you actually want to have git repositories
> cloned in some spot and just clone them from there. What's wrong with
> the current git clone/pull approach and git checkout that the git
> handler now does?
>
I wanted to use the local repositories as working trees and and avoid the
extra tarball creation,/unpack which sorcery does. Also some of these are not
generally available at the moment.

I will look at modules/url_handlers/url_git_local





--
Regards, Treeve

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page