[arch-general] Frequency of abs updates, would increasing frequency cost much?

[Ray Rashif]

On 31 January 2011 17:45, Jelle van der Waa <jelle at vdwaa.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:18 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Am 31.01.2011 07:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
>> > This is more a general question, I understand abs is updated every 24
>> > hours. Would more regular updates (say, every 1 hour or so) be better?
>>
>> A bit off-topic: You don't have to use ABS if you don't need a complete
>> tree.
>>
>> For a single package:
>>
>> svn co svn://svn.archlinux.org/packages/$pkgname/trunk
>> or
>> svn co svn://svn.archlinux.org/packages/$pkgname/repos/testing-i686
>> or similar. Replace 'packages' with 'community' for community and
>> multilib packages.
>> This gives direct access to the subversion tree, so it is instant on
>> updates. However, if people start trying to checkout the complete tree,
>> we will shut it down, as subversion is incredibly inefficient.
>>
>> You can also pull the git tree (see [1]), which is updated every two
>> hours, if you need the complete tree.
>>
>> [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/
>>
>
> Indeed this is the easy way out, when there was the svn webui you could
> download a tar. When i want to rebuild a package I always grabbed it
> from the website.
>
> Providing a whole abs tree updated every hour seems a bit too much
> overhead if you ask me. If you want the latest pkgbuild of foo just
> checkout the web ui or svn.
>
> I can't imagine a user waiting for a updated package of foo when there
> is a new version out and he wants to rebuild. (He just does that
> himself)
>
> To rest my case, i think the current situation is good enough.

He already mentioned that he can "manually access the SVN interface".
He needs the ABS way because he's using bauerbill to patch up stuff.

So you should bug the bauerbill author to include some kind of
alternative, say, SVN/GIT support.