Am Donnerstag, den 05.03.2020, 19:50 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > > * I'd base it off Git commits rather than tarballs. The tarballs are > > > anachronistic, and with git commits, it will be easier to build binaries > > > for pending changes (to make sure they don't break the process). > > > > Nope, I'm not a huge fan of doing this and actually I'd argue that > > tarballs are easier: Just run 'make dist' for your local changes. With > > GUB (which is entirely based on git commits for the LilyPond spec?), I > > always need to push the changes to a public repository. This has cost > > me quite some time in the past days and it just doesn't feel right when > > I want to quickly iterate with local changes. > > > > You don't have to push to a public repo. You can just pull from local > repository, no? I think file:/// urls work with Git too.
Yes and no: GUB hard-codes the URL of the public repo, see https://github.com/gperciva/gub/blob/master/gub/specs/lilypond.py#L23 It's entirely possible that I'm missing the obvious option to change this in GUB, but I don't want to go into the spec and hack it manually in there every time I need it. Just pointing at a self-contained tar is so much easier...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
