On Tue Feb 05 00:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > If we can't figure out a good and clean way to keep a large stack of > > long-lived patches in the vcs then I firmly believe we should > > standardize on quilt. > > I think I have indeed solved the issue of long standing feature > sets using feature branches, integration branches, and sloppy branches > while upgrading, and would not want to be forced to regress to a patch > system. > I don't think anyone is talking about forcing DVCS users to regress to a patch system, merely to change the interchange format; which all DVCS-based maintenance methods can easily export to/import from. The only reason which you would have to interact with it would be a more standard interface for NMUs, which can only be a good thing.
I am against patch system users being forced to changed to a DVCS system, however, which _has_ been suggested. (It may be technically superior, but let me change when I'm ready by demonstrating the virtues and providing tutorials, don't force me to use it because it's the new source format) Matt -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
