On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:37:10AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > * John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 04:12:50PM]: > > > Because everyone knows how to use cp and diff, and because I get diffs > > sent to the BTS all the time. It works. And it has nothing to do with > > VCS -- it's just Debian packages. > > Bingo. Therefore, your efforts to use the regular process as an argument > supporting darcs' patch management are pointless.
What? Are you trying to just be a troll here? I am saying that: * For the MAINTAINER, a single diff.gz is often not the most convenient. * I believe that ANY VCS is a better solution to this than ANY custom patch solution. * No matter which VCS you use, third parties (NMUers, etc) don't have to learn it -- they can use standard Debian tools. * No matter which custom patching solution you use, third parties DO have to learn it before they can start hacking on your code. * Darcs has certain advantages over other VCS. If *I* use Darcs instead of a patching tool, then if Joe Random Hacker wants to NMU my package, *HE* doesn't have to learn a thing. Plus I get all the benefits of patch management and history with more features than any patching tool. If *I* use Darcs, then EVERYONE ELSE can use the regular process. If *I* use a patching tool, then EVERYONE ELSE IS FORCED TO ALSO. Clear now? > > > And if the user has more than one patch which needs to be maintained > > > separately, is it still is still trivial FOR HIM? (or her) > > > > Who is the user? > > A system admin adding 3-5 extra patches to his local package > installation? How does this bolster your case? The local sysadmin has the potential to need to learn 3-5 patching tools in this case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
