Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#852090: Bug#851897: dgit: please have generated
source packages contain standard patch series"):
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 06:21:04PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I suggest adding this part...
> >
> > +to facilitate
> > +reviewing/upstreaming/dropping
> > +individual pieces.
> >
> > ... because I agreed with Daniel's point about rationales.
>
> I would still prefer not to include this.
I don't feel strongly about this so I'm going to defer to Sean, whose
original work this manpage is.
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 08:42:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I now have:
> >
> > The Debian packaging of foo is maintained in git,
> > using the merging workflow described in dgit-maint-merge(7).
> > | There isn't a patch queue that can be represented as a quilt series.
> >
> > A detailed breakdown of the changes is available from their
>
> s/the changes/the Debian delta/
>
> Thanks to the removal of the "automatically generated" sentence, "the
> changes" has lost its referent. And since we use "changes" in the next
> paragraph, a "delta" here reads better.
It's the header of a patch in debian/patches/. What "the changes"
refers to is surely obvious. Particularly from the previous sentence
which talks about the lack of a quilt series.
(Also "the Debian delta" is wrong if the same patch header is found in
a source packge for a derivative. The rest of the text is less
helpful too - mentioning Debian specific urls - but that's not as easy
to sort out.)
> > | A single combined diff, containing all the changes, follows.
>
> Consider dropping one of either
>
> > using the merging workflow described in dgit-maint-merge(7).
>
> or
>
> > See dgit-maint-merge(7) for more information.
>
> as we don't need two references to the manpage. I would suggest
> dropping the latter.
Yes, good point. Done.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
