[Live-demo] 2.0.3 testing

[Alex Mandel]

I agree Tags is more semantically appropriate in my mind and +1 on
changing wget calls from svn to local cp commands(Guess I didn't
remember to open a ticket on that)

As for the downloads, while a great idea, I'm not quite sure where we
could put this. We really don't have the space for it right now, and as
has been pointed out by the SAC, they would love for us to host the ISO
somewhere else if we could as it has an impact on other OSGeo services
(ie filling the drive crashed the wiki, etc)
We might need to toss this in a longer term question to solve:
Where to get space, bandwidth; should we do mirrors, torrents, etc.

Alex

Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hamish, I think this is a good idea, in particular being able to create
> a freeze of a build scripts so that it can be reproduced later.
> 
> I suggest going one step further.
> Our build process starts by downloading everything from
> livedvd/gisvm/trunk/ and get we use wget to get files out of svn during
> the build process.
> What I suggest is that we:
> 1. Instead of sourcing files by "wget -c
> http://svn.osgeo.org/livedvd/gisvm/trunk/dir/file" we should source the
> file from the version we have already downloaded which is currently at:
> "~/gisvm/trunk/bin/../dir/file".  We can rename the gisvm svn directory
> so that it is one below trunk, which will make scripts easier to run.
> 
> I suggest that we start making use of the tags directory. So that I can
> check out the 2.0.3. At times it is important to distinguish between
> 2.0.3 and 2.0.4 if there are users for both version. This is more
> important than using the branch directory. In fact, I suspect that we
> will avoid the need to use the branch directory for the most part,
> unless we decide to create an "unstable" build list and a "stable" build
> list.
> 
> 2. I suggest that we store a copy of the /tmp download directory. Some
> projects are likely to move their download source location, and if they
> do, then it will be hard for us to reproduce an old release.
> 
> 
> Hamish wrote:
>>> I should probably go through the commit log and give you a
>>> list of what I actually applied, since a lot of changes from
>>> 2.0 were done by hand.
>>>     
>>
>> I've been trying to do that already, syncing by hand stuff which
>> seemed relevant from trunk about once per day. I don't claim 100%
>> accuracy but was focusing on scripted solutions to stuff which
>> you did by hand in the VM. As such I'm not too concerned about
>> any noise which snuck in, but I would be curious to know which
>> things have been done by hand in the VM which have not had a
>> scripted solution checked in since. (to add a README.adjustments)
>>
>>
>> Hamish
>>
>>
>>
>>       _______________________________________________
>> Live-demo mailing list
>> Live-demo at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
>>   
> 
>