[Scons-dev] Web site checkout is 650Mb

[Gary Oberbrunner]

This would be a great help. Whether SF or bitbucket or Dropbox or Google
Drive or basically anywhere safe, I think this is a fine idea.  Not sure
about one gigantic gz though, it would complicate the software release
process a bit (download the old gz, add new docs to it, re-zip, and
re-upload).  If they could be stored essentially unpacked that would be
perfect.

Current release process and checklist is at
http://www.scons.org/wiki/ReleaseHOWTO#Simplified_2012.2B-_Mercurial-based_Release_Procedure_.28EXPERIMENTAL.29
-
it's not really experimental anymore, 2.2 and 2.3 both used it and it was
pretty smooth.



On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:56 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>wrote:


> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Antonio Cavallo <a.cavallo at cavallinux.eu>wrote:

>

>> Nope, using a version control on binary files is not wrong: in the gaming

>> industry these are called "assets" and studios do this all the time.

>>

>

> I believe that even in this case compiled assets are stored in a

> repository separated from the main source code tree.

>

>

>> You could put the docs into a gigantic gz file and extract as part of the

>> doc building process on the fly: that's what I do with doc (mine is +250Mb

>> thanks to MathAjax).

>

>

> I thought about the same - upload this gigantic .gz to SF.

> --

> anatoly t.

>

> _______________________________________________

> Scons-dev mailing list

> Scons-dev at scons.org

> http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

>

>



-- 
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20130720/3875e423/attachment.htm>