Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The alternative is handwaving and ignoring the fact that your package
>> repository is not a complete representation of your package as it
>> exists in the archive.
> What's wrong with storing the upstream tarballs themselves on a separate
> branch, if you're that desperate to have them inside the same git repo
> as the code?
I like Git repositories that are about 10MB rather than 200MB or more.
(And yes, I have used exactly that approach in the past, and know exactly
how painful having all the tarballs in the revision control system is.
Never again.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: