My preference would actually be to have a dist target in your Makefile (or other build system) that exports a distributable archive of your code (.tar.bz2, .zip, .jar, or whatever is appropriate). If you happen to be using GNU autotools or Perl's MakeMaker systems, I think this exists for you automatically. If not, I highly recommend adding it.

My preference would actually be to have a dist target in your Makefile (or other build system) that exports a distributable archive of your code (.tar.bz2, .zip, .jar, or whatever is appropriate). If you happen to be using GNU autotools or Perl's MakeMaker systems, I think this exists for you automatically. If not, I highly recommend adding it.

ETA (2012-09-06): Wow, harsh downvotes. I still believe it is better to build your distributions with your build tools rather than your source code control tool. I believe in building artifacts with build tools. In my current job, our main product is built with an ant target. We are in the midst of switching source code control systems, and the presence of this ant target means one less hassle in migration.