Hardy LRM git repository

[Tim Gardner]

Steve Conklin wrote:
> On 04/24/2009 02:05 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> Tim Gardner wrote:
>>> Stefan,
>>>
>>> I think its worthwhile to create a git repository for Hardy LRM,
>>> especially since you've unrolled the Broadcom tarball. It will also make
>>> it easier to manage the netbook-lpia branch. The other LRM binaries are
>>> not changing enough that it will trigger the inefficiencies with git
>>> that we saw during Hardy development.
>>>
>>> rtg
>> While probably not changing that much, they are huge (6x~10MB for Nvidia and 
>> one 52MB pack for ATI). The question is how gracefully git will handle such 
>> amounts. On the other hand I saw that it seems to do some sort of binary diff even.
>> It certainly helps our sanity to have a git repo, so our packages are found and 
>> can be handled the same. And hopefully my connection up is better now as I 
>> remember an upload tried while still in Canada suffered from the huge amount of 
>> data and had to be ass-kicked to the DC(s) first.
>> Andy, what would you think from the git side and Steve, you think this would 
>> help your workflow?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
> 
> Since we're still establishing work flow and we don't yet have lrm under management,
> I'll be happy to use whatever works for the rest of the distro, with the same
> caveats that have applied to the netbook-lpia in kernel and lum - that we maintain
> a branch that is synced as often as is convenient with the main branch, and have the
> ability (though discouraged) to create additional (very short-term) branches as needed to
> support specific releases when we are unable to put them into our primary netbook-lpia
> branch.
> 
> Steve
> 

Such was my intent when I suggested subjecting LRM to git management. I 
see no reason to treat it different then the other Hardy packages with 
respect to LPIA branch management.

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com