Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So? Supplying the derived files via CVS rather than via snapshots
>> won't improve matters at all for people who haven't got the tools.
> Why do you need the tools if CVS has the files?
Why do you need the tools if the nightly snapshots have the files?
Same either way AFAICS.
My objection is basically that CVS is a hugely inefficient mechanism
for delivering derived files. The cost is about the same from a
downloader's point of view as snapshot tarballs --- but we pay for each
update *forever* in CVS storage. I do not mind having CVS permanently
record every feature addition or bug fix; that's potentially-useful
history. But there is zero historical content in derived files.
> I added something to configure so the derived files are newer than the
> others.
Doesn't that break the scenario you were just citing where a WIN32_DEV
user is trying to fix something in a .y or .l file?
regards, tom lane
