Hi, On 10/05/22 at 16:57 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > 1.0-with-diff has advantages over 3.0 (quilt) particularly with git-based > workflows, because in 3.0 (quilt) the diff is included inside the source > tree
> The issue of preferred form for modification has been raised (source package > in general, quilt stack, or VCS repo); Sam states that there is consensus > both that git workflows are best practice (especially where upstream uses > git), and that natives packages are sometimes an appropriate tool to use. > There is a wide range of git workflows, which the occasional NMUer can avoid > caring about by use of dgit(7). I think that the two above paragraphs mix two different categories of workflows: - git-first workflows: packaging workflows that use git as the preferred form for modification, and use the source package format as an opaque output format - git-using workflows: packaging workflows that use git for collaboration and tracability, but aim at producing a source package that is useful on its own (typically with a clean patch serie) With this distinction made, I think that: > 1.0-with-diff has advantages over 3.0 (quilt) particularly with git-based > workflows, because in 3.0 (quilt) the diff is included inside the source > tree => this really only applies to git-first workflows > Sam states that there is consensus > both that git workflows are best practice (especially where upstream uses > git) I think that: - There is consensus that using a VCS, and Git in particular, for packaging is a best practice - git-using workflows are a best practice (based on their usage by the vast majority of packages) But I challenge that there is a consensus that git-first workflows are a best practice. I think that they are a practice that is worth exploring and experimenting on, but not yet widely adopted nor understood. But I would be happy to be proven wrong (especially of based on facts). Lucas
