Hi Pierre, On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 09:17:12PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Again, the discussion isn't (for me) about a tool, but an exchange > format. We are discussing having patches served in a quilt series, and
okay, this approach is similar but different. So you want a quilt series, but not quilt. This means every other utility must be able to generate this and must support every future quilt has, which itself may not have. So, effectively you don't actively force them to use sth. but passiveley you do. The difference is small however. > let people adapt their tools to be able to export their work as a quilt > series so that other can find it and import it in their own tool of > choice if needed. But I am nitpicking. Call it "defining a common interface", while I call it "decide on quilt as a common patch system". That does not matter. What matters is that we give up a little diversity for some more efficience. > Enforcing maintenance tools is A Bad Idea™. The difference is huge: > having common interfaces means that there is One True Tool that everyone > can use if he doesn't know the Real Tools the Maintainer uses (apt-get > source versus $SCM clone/checkout/whatever). That are different solutions to different problems. apt-get source only fetches finished (release, uploaded) source packages, while $SCM clone/checkout/whatever fetches the history of the package including the snapshot of it when doing the checkout. The common interface for $SCM would more likely be debcheckout imo. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
