[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] proposed v3 source format using .git.tar.gz

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:49:55 -0400, Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> said: 

> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:19:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:24:46 -0400, Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> said: 
>>> I presume you could ship all the "normal" files in one tarball, the
>>> .arch-ids and {arch} directories in another, and the debian/ directory
>>> in a third.

>> Err, and why am I doing this? Why am I not shipping my working
>> directory as a tarball, complete instead of breaking it up
>> (apparently arbitrarily) into three parts?

> As opposed to an .orig.tar.gz and all the debian/, {arch}/, and
> .arch-ids/ components in the .diff.gz ?

        Umm, I was asking about why the normal and the arch-ids and
 {arch} directories are being separated, and the ./debian dir as well.

        The idea of the wig & pen was so that we no longer used diff as
 an version control system, or were able to use more than one tar ball
 for the source.

        How is this working in this proposal? I do not ship the
 orig.tar.gz file, but I ship and orig.arch.tar.gz file with the
 upstream branch?

        Then I mostly duplicate this by shipping a working dir, and each
 also somehow ship an delta that recreates the orig.tar.gzx file from
 the upstream branch I am shipping?

>> How is git reconstituting the files if there is no network access?
>> Are they shipping all the bits needed to get a full working dir
>> without any network access?

> Yes.  the .git/ (or .bzr/ ) directory contains the entire (or abridged
> in the case of these shallow clones) history so you can "check out"
> any of the covered revisions.

        A history as in RCS-like history, with parches, as opposed to
 the patch-log that is what the {arch} directories contain? 

> This would be akin to you including a cachedrev of an arbitrary
> version followed by all the subsequent patches.tar.gz files, except
> that I believe git et al. are meant to be more space-efficient.



        OK, so for arch I suppose I just ship a working dir, period, and
 people need network access to  get the older versions, unless people
 want terabytes of the archive in every source versions.


Mind your own business, Mr. Spock.  I'm sick of your halfbreed
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: