Comment 12 for bug 1211414

Yep you are correct. My mistake. i apologize for the noise.

FYI I worked for a rather large software company in the SF Bay area. At
least one division kept binaries in their source contorl system. The
reasoning was they would have copies of the exact binaries shipped to
customers. It was in the words of the VP who pushed for it "a way to
avoid differences in the test environment computer systems" that
inevitably crept in.

On 08/14/2013 12:34 AM, Stas Boukarev wrote:
> It says:
> Source: sbcl-1.1.10-source.tar.bz2
>
> The development version is available from git:
> git clone git://git.code.sf.net/p/sbcl/sbcl
>
> Binaries:
> ...
>
> so git is clearly for sources. And I have never seen version control
> systems used for distributing binaries. If that's not enough of a clue,
> then I don't see why more detailed information in the INSTALL file
> wouldn't be ignored just as well.
>
> Changed to confirmed, since your 3 point about documentation
> installation is valid.
>
> ** Changed in: sbcl
> Status: Invalid => Confirmed
>
> ** Changed in: sbcl
> Importance: Undecided => Low
>