Re: Git Vs. Svn for a project which *must* distribute binaries too.

On 6/5/07, Bryan Childs [off-list ref] wrote:

Oh lord no - I never meant to imply that we'd be checking those
binaries in, I just meant to hi-light that we need a central
repository to build those binaries from - otherwise we'd end up with a

If your infrastructure to build the binaries is automated, you can
easily script the build for new incoming commits. The output of
git-describe is really useful for this if you are going to name your
builds `git describe`-<arch>.tar.gz.

OTOH, commit is different from push (vs SVN where both are one op),
and that means that when using git you can present a large change as a
better-explained patch-series. That's actually a good practice for new
development, and it might not make sense to have literally
one-build-per-commit.

Maybe I'd enable auto-builds for maintenance/bugfixes branches, and on
other (experimental/devel) branches only auto-build commits selected
explicitly (tagged?).

cheers,


martin