2014-10-11 13:09 GMT+02:00 Agustin Martin <[email protected]>: Hi, Jonas,
>> To have my preferred look explicit merging of upstream into master >> seems missing, but that is a matter of personal taste. > Not sure what you mean here. If important, please try elaborate - else > I trust you to do whatever you feel most sensible. Nothing important, package also builds this way, but history does not look like I am used to when using gitk. This stroke me when looking at the cloned git repo with gitk. 1.6.30 import looked different than 1.6.25 upstream 76fb9aa1 Imported Upstream version 1.6.25 master a754433 Merge commit 'upstream/1.6.25' upstream 41f5da56 Imported Upstream version 1.6.30 master febe2c34 Imported Upstream version 1.6.30 Seems that there was a problem with git-import-orig when importing 1.6.30 and it was imported both in upstream and master branches instead of being imported in upstream branch and changes merged from master branch as for 1.6.25. febe2c34 is a normal commit, not a merge commit. Merging now is possible, it will not be marked in the exact point, but the usual import structure will appear again. >> Hope this helps. If you are busy I can prepare an NMU with the changes >> you find convenient. > You are quite welcome to NMU. Or even better join me in maintaining it: > Add yourself as uploader and do a regular release :-) Fine, let me look better at this. I need to make sure first that for 1.6.30 my perl script gives the same result than the bash script. I would like to first do a merge commit from upstream to master branch before adding any other commit, just cosmetic. I hope to upload 1.6.30 soon, probably early next week. If there is also time for the most recent version, better. Regards, [PS: Note that I am not yet subscribed to dsdo PTS or bugs, do not forget to cc me] -- Agustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
