On Tue Feb 05 22:43, Ben Finney wrote: > Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am against patch system users being forced to changed to a DVCS > > system, however, which _has_ been suggested. > > I've not seen that suggested in this thread. Can you give a reference, > please? > > What I've seen, that might be confused with the above, is: > > * arguments against patch systems on the basis of forcing others to > use those specific tools; followed by requests; > > * arguments for DVCS workflows on the basis that they provide the > advantages of tracking changes without forcing others to know the > specific tool used;
Also: * The package format should be standardised such that the same
workflow works for everyone.
This implies to me that those who dislike patch systems and like DVCS
workflows wish to standardise on the latter. I don't see how someone who
wants to deal with patches can do that, whereas I can see how DVCS users
can continue their workflow, but still have a patch system in the source
format.
(I would go through and get references, but it's a long thread, and I
should be working. Sorry)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
