Mercurial repository usage with binary files for building setup files

Posted by Ryan on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Ryan
Published on 2010-04-14T04:33:06Z Indexed on 2010/04/14 4:43 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 264

Filed under:
|

I have an existing Mercurial repository for a C++ application in a small corporate environment. I asked a co-worker to add the setup script to the repository and he added all of the dependency binaries, PDFs, and executable to the repository under an Install directory. I dislike having the binaries and dependencies in the same repository, but I'd like recommendations on best practices. Here are the options I am considering:

  1. Create a separate repository for the Installer and related files
  2. Create a subrepository for the Installer and related files
  3. Use a (yet to be identified) build dependency manager

I am concerned with using a subrepository with Mercurial based on what I've read so far and the (apparently) incomplete implementation. I would like to get a project dependency system, e.g. Ivy, but I don't know all of the options and haven't had time yet to try out any options.

I thought I'd use TortoiseHg as a basis, and it does not have the TortoiseHg binaries in the repository although it does have some binaries such as kdiff3.exe. Instead it uses setup.py to clone multiple repositories and build the apps. This seems reasonable for OSS, but not so much for corporate environments.

Recommendations?

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about mercurial

Related posts about best-practices