# Getting a tagged release without subversion, possible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Engines\ **Created:** [September 6, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798 "2006-09-06T21:50:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/1 "2006-09-06T21:50:57Z")
Hi, For various reasons, using subversion in our project is not feasible. It’s important that we maintain stability in our codebase though, so we only want to include official releases of the Engines plugin. I was hoping something like this might work: ruby script/plugin install [http://svn.rails-engines.org/plugins/engines/tags/rel\_1.0.0](http://svn.rails-engines.org/plugins/engines/tags/rel_1.0.0), but no luck, nothing there anyway. So, I figure either there really is no tagged release there or subversion is required to get a tagged release. Since I don’t use subversion, I’m not sure which is true. Can anyone illuminate? Provide some way to get official releases on into the future? We could always For my 2 cents, it’s too bad that plugins are so tied to subversion in the first place, and I’d really like to see a more flexible and more gems-like (or any-decent-package-manager-like) method to distribute them. But I digress … Thanks for any help, John ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/2 "2006-09-06T22:25:02Z")
Hi John, Why can’t you use subversion on at least one of your machines to download a tagged version? Seems like a strange restriction. You could even do it at home and email it to yourself if you can’t do it at work. Peter ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/3 "2006-09-06T23:13:06Z")
Hey Peter, We certainly could do that, and if we decide to use the engines approach, may have to. Ok, this is my one-and-only rant here, I swear: Don’t you think it’s even stranger to install an entire SCM system to simply use it as a package manager? What could be more restricting than a technology designed to be used by unknown development groups (plugins) making such a huge assumption about what kind of SCM system you’re using or need to use? We don’t use subversion for very good reasons and I personally consider it a big step backward because it carries so many of CVS’ problems with it into the future?centralized, non-atomic, it’s super heavy, and on an on. Darcs, now there’s a truly modern SCM 😉 Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, I’d still like to find a non-subversion way to capture official releases. Might be as simple as requesting they be posted as tarballs … Thanks for the suggestion though, seriously. John ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/4 "2006-09-07T02:07:24Z")
On 9/6/06, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > we only want to include official releases of the Engines plugin. I > was hoping something like this might work: ruby script/plugin install > [http://svn.rails-engines.org/plugins/engines/tags/rel\_1.0.0](http://svn.rails-engines.org/plugins/engines/tags/rel_1.0.0), but no > luck, nothing there anyway. [http://svn.rails-engines.org/engines/tags/](http://svn.rails-engines.org/engines/tags/) - all the tags you could ever hope for. See also the README at the root of the repository. > So, I figure either there really is no tagged release there or > subversion is required to get a tagged release. Since I don’t use > subversion, I’m not sure which is true. Can anyone illuminate? > Provide some way to get official releases on into the future? We > could always This is actually highlighted in every announcement I make - did you search? ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 12:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/5 "2006-09-07T00:05:14Z")
On 9/6/06, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > We certainly could do that, and if we decide to use the engines > approach, may have to. But you won’t be able to stay up-to-date very easily. For example, when the recent Rails core security issue came up the engines plugin had to be modified. So you would be driving home to email your self a copy of the updated version. Seems like a pain. > Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, I’d still like to find a > non-subversion way to capture official releases. Might be as simple > as requesting they be posted as tarballs … I think it is practical to have SVN installed on your computer if you are in the Rails world. That way you can do this stuff without spending any time worrying about it. Just “svn export” and you are finished. Is there some sort of security problem you are worried about by having and SVN client on your computer? > Thanks for the suggestion though, seriously. It’s a way to get started anyway. Engines are very cool. Peter ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 2:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/6 "2006-09-07T02:23:25Z")
Hey thanks, that helps. I guess I missed that somehow while combing the site, sorry. Any comments on the appropriateness of Engines for hosting multiple domains on a single app? It’s odd, but in a way we’re trying to solve the problem solved by Duane with Productize, which is the inverse problem that engines solve in a way, although they still seem to make sense, but in a complementary fashion of sorts … john ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/7 "2006-09-07T02:07:24Z")
Hi, Peter M. wrote: > On 9/6/06, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > […] > > > Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, I’d still like to find a > > non-subversion way to capture official releases. Might be as simple > > as requesting they be posted as tarballs … > > I think it is practical to have SVN installed on your computer if you > are in the Rails world. That way you can do this stuff without > spending any time worrying about it. Just “svn export” and you are > finished. Is there some sort of security problem you are worried about > by having and SVN client on your computer? I don’t know of any other language that has a SCM system as a dependency. For configuration management purposes, you really need a way of tracking what revision is installed where - pulling untagged releases from SVN/CVS/whatever is a really bad idea in some environments. Tarballs have the advantage of being a single, unchanging entity that can be cryptographically signed, checksummed, etc. to assure the end user they know what they’re downloading, plus they can easily be stored on tape, CD, whatever for disaster recovery purposes. I’m playing devil’s (or John’s) advocate here; while I like the option of retrieving code via SVN, it still feels risky, like I’m using bleeding-edge code rather than something tested and approved for release even if that’s not the case. I’m leery of using SVN as the primary or sole release mechanism. YMMV, – Bob ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 2:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/8 "2006-09-07T02:23:25Z")
On Sep 6, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Peter M. wrote: > On 9/6/06, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > We certainly could do that, and if we decide to use the engines > > approach, may have to. > > But you won’t be able to stay up-to-date very easily. For example, > when the recent Rails core security issue came up the engines plugin > had to be modified. So you would be driving home to email your self a > copy of the updated version. Seems like a pain. Very true and a concern. > by having and SVN client on your computer? > I guess we could keep a plugin repository using subversion and keep > that up to date, but we’d then have to suck changes into our working > SCM, darcs. Which might not be too too bad. > > Thanks for the suggestion though, seriously. > > It’s a way to get started anyway. Engines are very cool. They are. The only thing that bothers me is that we are looking for a way to host multiple sites on one physical app, which we are thinking of deploying as an engine to a bunch of application stubs. I’m not sure we’re using Engines in the right way here, but it would probably beat dynamically switching the database connection, etc. Although, since we’ll probably use mongrel or some other container mechanism, we’d only have to do that once … so maybe engines are the wrong choice for us. Still trying to figure that out. ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 3:03am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/9 "2006-09-07T03:03:28Z")
On 9/6/06, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I guess we could keep a plugin repository using subversion and keep > that up to date, but we’d then have to suck changes into our working > SCM, darcs. Which might not be too too bad. No different than if you could get the engines as a tar ball. > They are. The only thing that bothers me is that we are looking for a > way to host multiple sites on one physical app, which we are thinking > of deploying as an engine to a bunch of application stubs. I’m not > sure we’re using Engines in the right way here, but it would probably > beat dynamically switching the database connection, etc. Do the separate sites have anything shared in the database? If they are sharing the same database then engines might not be the way to go. If they really are distinct apps (eg online stores with separate owners) then engines could be a great way to go. I think the most important things about engines is choosing the right time to use them. Peter ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 9:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/10 "2006-09-07T09:46:15Z")
On 9/7/06, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Hey thanks, that helps. > > I guess I missed that somehow while combing the site, sorry. > > Any comments on the appropriateness of Engines for hosting multiple > domains on a single app? It’s odd, but in a way we’re trying to > solve the problem solved by Duane with Productize, which is the > inverse problem that engines solve in a way, although they still seem > to make sense, but in a complementary fashion of sorts … Engines do indeed solve exactly the inverse of ‘productize’ - that was exactly their purpose 🙂 As such, they’re unlikely to be a good fit for your particular problem. - james ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 5:21am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/11 "2006-09-07T05:21:38Z")
On 9/6/06, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Hey thanks, that helps. > > I guess I missed that somehow while combing the site, sorry. > > Any comments on the appropriateness of Engines for hosting multiple > domains on a single app? It’s odd, but in a way we’re trying to > solve the problem solved by Duane with Productize, which is the > inverse problem that engines solve in a way, although they still seem > to make sense, but in a complementary fashion of sorts … What will your site do? Details will help people help you. ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 10:10am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/12 "2006-09-07T10:10:16Z")
On 9/7/06, James A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > As for releasing tarballs, that puts additional workload on the > developer, and we’re all lazy, aren’t we 🙂 I would much rather see developers develop then spend time releasing tags in many formats. Deployments, releases, etc are not fun. SVN works fine and it is better if all plugin developers are using SVN then some using SVN, some using CVS, some using tar balls, etc. Peter ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/13 "2006-09-07T17:27:20Z")
Hey All, It wasn’t my intention to start a general plugins deployment discussion on this specific list, but it might be useful anyway seeing as how the Engines system is attractive to groups thinking about ways to do mass deployments and to develop reusable code. We can keep going offline if you think this is too far OT. None of the comments so far really change the fact that an SCM system shouldn’t be in use here at all. SCM systems are not intended and not suited to be used in this way and, IMO, it is a serious barrier to adoption of the plugins technology in established development groups to dictate they have to use a certain SCM system. Wrong, just plain wrong and just because this is the way things are now doesn’t mean that’s how they should stay. The fact that installing a plugin is possible at all without using subversion shows that on some level someone recognized this as true. Of course James has made getting a tagged release easy, and that is good enough for us for now. Thank you, James, we do appreciate that. This way we can install a particular release of the Engine plugin if we want and link to it in all our installs. The “lowest common denominator” rationalization is exactly why we got stuck with such a crappy tool in CVS for so many years, and subversion is only a nominal improvement over CVS. If we would like established groups with a real need for stability in the environment (e.g. they are rolling out mass deployments) to adopt plugins like Engines then a better mechanism for releasing, versioning and controlling plugins as discrete packages is what has to happen. We can easily do this for ourselves given what James has graciously provided, but imagine if you needed subversion installed to get Ruby installed. How many people do you think would be using Ruby today? And the fact that RoR uses subversion internally is a total red herring: subversion is in no way required to get my hands on rails and use it, nor should it be. The gems system is the real workhorse in this case, and it’s doing the job it’s designed to do. Finally, thinking that what I’m saying is that developers should release tags in a whole slew of different SCM systems and packages in different file formats misses my point altogether. The plugins community needs to find a good package management system, not an SCM system, and use that. Probably be even easier than using any SCM system out there anyway. What SCM system you use in your projects is and should be nobody else’s call. That’s probably all I have to say, for which I bet some are glad 😉 But it’s a good discussion to have, I think. Cheers, John ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 9:58am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/14 "2006-09-07T09:58:16Z")
On 9/7/06, Bob A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I don’t know of any other language that has a SCM system as a > dependency. For configuration management purposes, you really need a way > of tracking what revision is installed where - pulling untagged releases > from SVN/CVS/whatever is a really bad idea in some environments. … hence why at least the Engines plugin comes with a stable set of tags, which I _heartily_ recommend that every production site which uses engines use. Stability is key, people. > I’m playing devil’s (or John’s) advocate here; while I like the option > of retrieving code via SVN, it still feels risky, like I’m using > bleeding-edge code rather than something tested and approved for release > even if that’s not the case. I’m leery of using SVN as the primary or > sole release mechanism. The reason why SVN is the ‘primary release mechanism’ for plugins is because it is the _only_ release mechanism. The current script/plugin tool will ONLY download from SVN repositories. How risky or otherwise each particular repository’s maintainer, but in general a tagged release is never modified once created. Anyway - there is work afoot to retool script/plugin as we speak (see posts on [interblah.net](http://interblah.net) and [lukeredpath.co.uk](http://lukeredpath.co.uk)), so in theory there’s no reason why other SCM systems couldn’t be supported. Even with support for Darcs (or anything else), you’re just introducing a dependency on having those tools, plus SVN, for people who would want to download plugins. SVN is the lowest common denominator, so everyone uses it because they can be reasonably sure that if they aren’t using it, they don’t particularly mind installing it. Rails uses SVN, too. As for releasing tarballs, that puts additional workload on the developer, and we’re all lazy, aren’t we 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@amin1426](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/amin1426)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2006, 6:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/getting-a-tagged-release-without-subversion-possible/67798/15 "2006-09-14T18:16:50Z")
On Sep 6, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Peter M. wrote: > > of deploying as an engine to a bunch of application stubs. I’m not > > sure we’re using Engines in the right way here, but it would probably > > beat dynamically switching the database connection, etc. > > Do the separate sites have anything shared in the database? If they > are sharing the same database then engines might not be the way to go. There might be groups of sites sharing a single database, but these would also be sharing the same stub. > If they really are distinct apps (eg online stores with separate > owners) then engines could be a great way to go. They may. Doesn’t it feel a bit heave to basically package everything but the config/cache/etc into an engine though? Maybe not, just wondering … > I think the most important things about engines is choosing the right > time to use them. true dat