Re: Why are Xcode "updates" so friggin' big??
Re: Why are Xcode "updates" so friggin' big??
- Subject: Re: Why are Xcode "updates" so friggin' big??
- From: Nick Zitzmann <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:18:43 -0700
On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:04 AM, Klaus Backert wrote:
A delta update for Xcode would be a nightmare for both us and the
Xcode team
if you think about it.
Could someone please explain the reasoning behind this.
In an attempt to restore the topic of this thread:
The Xcode 1.1 delta was a nightmare because it was incomplete, and I
think that was intentional in order to bring down download sizes. In
the end, it was missing a newer version of Interface Builder that
didn't clobber .svn directories inside nibs, as well as a new and not
100% backward-compatible 10.2.8 SDK (the SDK that shipped with Xcode
1.0 was a "10.2.7" SDK, so everyone who installed the delta still had
that one installed). Of course, if you're a lone developer and don't
use Subversion, then those two things don't matter that much. But
these two things, and in particular the SDK issue, made working on
distributed projects a nightmare because everyone had different
versions of 1.1 installed. Go search the list archives if you don't
believe me...
Anyway, a delta would make sense if they included every single file
that was updated, which is a tricky thing to do since a single
difference in a file between the "delta" and "full" installs can
cause chaos in distributed projects. In the end, since every file
usually gets updated anyway, it's probably best that things stay the
way they are.
Nick Zitzmann
<http://seiryu.home.comcast.net/>
S/MIME signature available upon request
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden