On Fri January 25 2008 3:47:36 am sean finney wrote: > hiya, > > On Friday 25 January 2008 09:50:56 am Andreas Tille wrote: > > I would be absolutely unhappy about this. On one hand it is just a > > waste of resources to clone upstream source on the other hand handling a > > set of (documented!!) patches seems much more clearly for my taste. > > "inconvenient because of poor support in $VCS" != "just a waste of > resources". > > In fact as i'm slowly getting involved with more and more packages using > git, i'm finding it much more easy and natural to have the orig upstream > in the VCS.
I'm using Mercurial, and have similar thoughts there. Really, I find a dVCS a perfect tool for this. This is exactly its strength. We have a branch (upstream) and another branch (Debian). When upstream has a new version, we do a merge. This is a core strength of these tools. We get a regular-looking tree for easy diffing and use by non-VCS users, plus we get full upstream and Debian history for free. Oh, and easy collaboration thrown in. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
