getting current source version

[Luke Schierer]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 02:07:44PM -0400, Luke Schierer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:01:32PM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> > Luke Schierer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:40:42AM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> > >> Having just installed Feisty on a system (which comes with Gaim
> > >> 2.0.0b6), I decided to see if anyone had made a plugin/patch/fork to fix
> > >> the bug for the missing protocol icons.  I see there's supposed to be a
> > >> fix in v2.2.0, but nowhere on the site could I find a place to get the
> > >> current version of the source code (cvs/svn/git/whatever) to try
> > >> building my own package.  The only version available for download is
> > >> v2.1.0, which still has the old bug.
> > > 
> > > We devote several pages of developer.pidgin.im to this very topic
> > > (getting the source).  That being said, DO NOT DO SO.  Unless you are
> > > planning on working on a patch, translation or plugin, you are a drain
> > > on resources that are decidedly limited.
> > 
> > ????
> > 
> > Compiling a programme on *MY* machine is a drain on *yours*????  Where's
> > the logic in that?
> > 
> > What I want to do is try to use Pidgin *with* the protocol icons which,
> > until a pre-built version becomes available, requires building it myself.
> > 
> 
> Compiling is 0 cost.  the mtn pull is what costs.  There is a similar
> cost associated with svn or cvs, though the impact of that cost with
> either of these solutions would be greater, because you need access to
> the central server for a larger percentage of operations.  This is why
> SF split off the anonymous cvs server from the "developer" cvs server,
> the cost of pulls was so high as to prevent developers from reaching the
> cvs server at all.
> 
> While we (thankfully) have no where near that much traffic, we also have
> no where near that much hardware.  As a result, the cost of pulls is
> still a noticable drain on our resources. 
> 
> luke

Along these lines, you will notice that we continue to host the tarball
downloads on SF's mirrors.  We *cannot* support a significant number
(compared to the number of users) of downloads on our existing hardware.

luke