On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:00:52 +0000, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
Why should I bring my feature branches into a patch system, when
there is no need to? As far as the end user or NMUer is ocnerned, they
do apt-get source foo, and they get the sources they may hack
on. Adding to the chaos by converting my nice, clean source format to
the blecherousness of a patch system does seem like regression to me.
manoj
--
IBM Advanced Systems Group -- a bunch of mindless jerks, who'll be first
against the wall when the revolution comes... -- with regrets to
D. Adams
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
