On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 06:08:17PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The problem is that you and Manoj assume that this is the only way to do > > things. I don't believe this. Pierre Habouzit has been experimenting > > with an alternative method of feature branches that exports to a linear > > stack of diffs just fine. Just because Manoj is doing something one way > > right now doesn't mean it's the only or even the correct way to do it. > > Well, I definitely don't think it's the only way to do things, and I've > been one of the people arguing in favor of quilt and exporting to a set of > patches. :) But the "native" Git workflow that people have previously > written up for Debian packages doesn't seem to me to linearize very > easily, and IMO one of the points here was to let maintainers keep using > their native workflows and use the package format for interchange. > Changing the workflow to allow easier export to a particular package > format seems to be going the wrong direction to me. > > In other words, I still think a patch-based package format is a good idea > and would be very valuable for a lot of what's in Debian, but I have to > agree with Manoj's point, based on what I've seen so far, that converting > an arbitrary Git or Arch repository for Debian package maintenance to such > a package format isn't necessarily easy.
Ok, that's fair. In the worst case then people who want to use this sort of workflow could stick everything in a giant diff like we do now, so nothing would be lost. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
