Fw: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...

[Shureih, Tariq]

Great!  That's what I wanted to hear :)

We will make the script change today then.

As far the stable/un-stable code concept, I think we address it already in
the build system, process and output page with the milestone tags.


--
Tariq ¤
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
Opinions are my own and do NOT
represent those of Intel Corporation.
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-

-----Original Message-----
From: Khalid Aziz [mailto:khalid at fc.hp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:54 PM
To: Shureih, Tariq
Cc: Jeremy A. Puhlman; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...

By publishing the source code from last known good build, we give people
a convenient way of downloading the last known good sources as a single
file. In general, when one checks out the top of tree from any CVS
archive (CGL or not), one does not expect it to be in usable shape at
all times. Top of the tree may have bugs, or might not build even.
Sources from the last known good build are the only way to get source
code you can put some faith in. Of course, what would be more reliable
would be the sources from last completely tested and validated set of
bits, but we are not there yet. Downloading a single tar file is much
more convenient than checking sources out of CVS. The audience for this
source tarball would be open source community and distros, primarily.

--
Khalid
 
"Shureih, Tariq" wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify how things took place.
> 
> We, integration, changed the build output to binary tar archives because
> RPMs were not accepted -- for obvious reasons I agree with.
> 
> What I understood from Rusty is that we need to post the binary tar
archives
> NOT source since people, in osdl or outside, can access source via
anonymous
> cvs.
> 
> We maintained the RPM output for the validation and ABAT structure in
place.
> 
> Now, it's a matter of a small script change to start posting source tar
> archives, but for my own personal curiosity, why do we want to do that?
> Let me elaborate:
> What is the purpose of publishing the build output?
> Is it for specific audience such as validation?  Is it for open-source
> community to have access to what we do?
> 
> Answering that question will answer the proper method to post the build
> output in.
> 

====================================================================
Khalid Aziz                                   Linux Systems Division
(970)898-9214                                        Hewlett-Packard
khalid at fc.hp.com                                    Fort Collins, CO

"The Linux kernel is subject to relentless development" 
				- Alessandro Rubini