dSYM status report and proposal

[Colin Barrett]

On May 29, 2009, at 1:17 PM, David Smith wrote:

> My vague recollection is that Zac checked our repo size before and  
> after a libpurple update, and it cost us a couple of megs. They may  
> be diff'd but apparently it's not all that effective for this type  
> of thing.

My also vague recollection is that the reason this happens is that an  
executable format is not particularly diffable. Even if some code  
doesn't itself change, the linker may put that code in a different  
spot anyway, which will cause most diff formats to record adds &  
deletes. I don't know the particulars of the binary diff format  
Mercurial uses, but it could be related to that.

On May 29, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:

> subrepo support (similar to but better than svn:externals) is  
> planned as part of Mercurial 1.3, due out in July. That would make  
> this much easier to maintain and follow which libpurple belonged  
> where.

I agree, this would be ideal.

What's the consensus on Peter's original proposal? Should we halt  
until 1.3 comes out? Is there anything (1.4 release, possibly?) that  
dSYMs are blocking?

-Colin