Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also: * The package format should be standardised such that the same > workflow works for everyone.
Not necessarily the pacakge *format*. The request you seem to be referring to was that of Lars, when he requested that a specific sequence of operations should work for every source package. That's an issue of the *interface*, much more than the format. Currently, that request is fullfillable with either of "don't track changes, mix everything into foo.diff.gz" or "track changes in a VCS, use automated tools to build foo.diff.gz when building the source package". It is not met by patch bundle systems. > This implies to me that those who dislike patch systems and like > DVCS workflows wish to standardise on the latter. Not that I've seen, no. What I have seen is the argument that a VCS-based workflow doesn't impose the internal workings on the one-time source modification contributor the way that patch bundle workflows do. This has accordingly been held up as an advantage of VCS-based workflow, with which I agree. I've not seen it held up as an argument to force anyone to use a specific tool or workflow, and with that I would disagree. -- \ "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very | `\ important that you do it." —Mahatma Gandhi | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
