[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch?

From: zimoun
Subject: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch?
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 03:08:26 +0200


Based on these 2 messages [1,2], what is the consensus between
git-fetch and url-fetch?

Pushing to SWH when linting appears to me winning the pros/cons.  Even
if SWH should eventually fetch soon.
And the other big pros from my point of view is the content-addressed
Git references.

Well, does it make sense to state on a recommended method?

All the best,

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 18:41, Marius Bakke <address@hidden> wrote:

> url-fetch requires less bandwidth, and does not depend on 'git'.
> Though the most important distinction is that uploaded releases
> sometimes contain pre-processed sources (e.g. documentation) that need
> additional dependencies or scripts when building from the raw repository
> (this is why you often need to add autoconf, libtool & friends as inputs
> when building Autotools projects from git).
> I don't know whether there is a difference between the uploaded fmt
> zipball and the git repository.

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 15:39, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:

> Other considerations:
>   - Bandwidth requirement for source code downloads has never been a
>     criterion so far.
>   - Git references are nice because they’re (roughly) content-addressed.
>   - ‘guix lint -c archival’ archives Git references on Software
>     Heritage; it does not archive tarballs (though SWH will do it
>     for us eventually.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]