dbn.lists at gmail.com
Mon Apr 3 07:38:22 PDT 2006
On 4/3/06, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 06:20 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > Who would decide that the CVS was stable at a given point?
> Well, it has been my experience that Tidy CVS was always stable.
> Perhaps you weren't aware that it was not unusual for Tidy to have
> 3 releases in *a week* (actually, this was quite normal).
I was aware of all the releases. However, I can't agree with the
statement that the CVS is always stable. That implies 100% bug and
regression-free development. But that's the developer's line, not
> Secondly, it is *recommended* on the Tidy web site to use CVS if
> you want any current version. Their tarball creation mechanism
> is broken.
Then in my opinion, the book should note that the developer suggests
using CVS for the time being and people can use that instead of the
051026 version in the book.
> if you want current sources, get them from
> CVS as they cannot release tarballs right now.
I wouldn't say cannot release tarballs. The tarballs can be created
at any time. I don't think we should be hosting a tarball because of
developer laziness. The fact that the developers can't take less than
5 minutes to do a CVS export and tarball creation boggles my mind.
More information about the blfs-dev