erma-core team mailing list archive

[Doug Barth <dougbarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Stephen Mullins wrote:

> Maybe I just wasn't used to it, but I found it to be a lot of  
> overhead in launchpad that I needed to create a series, a milestone,  
> and a release to upload an artifact.  Is it easier/different using  
> Github to release new versions of ERMA?


Different would be the best way to describe it. Launchpad is designed  
to prescribe a workflow for releasing your project. They name things a  
bit differently than you may be used to. The series you're required to  
create is just a branch off trunk that you can use to stabilize the  
release and back patch versions. The milestone is optional, and is  
used to target bugs and blueprints for a particular release. It's just  
a planning tool and if you're getting no value from it, I wouldn't  
create it.

So if Launchpad is prescriptive, Github would be the opposite. It  
supports Git tags and branches, but it is up to you to create a  
sensible release process with those tools. We would need to figure out  
where to host the binary files. Github's integrated wiki is one option.

In either case, your best bet is probably to script the release  
process, perhaps as an Ant task. I couldn't say for certain, but I'd  
imagine that that script may be easier to write against Github, since  
all of its views of the codebase are driven from the repository  
itself. So, it would essentially just be a series of local Git  
commands followed by a push to the server.
--
Doug Barth