On Friday 16 May 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le vendredi 16 mai 2008 à 16:04 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > > > You're insinuatiog that a VCS does not allow easily browsing and > > > examining patches, and I just don't buy it. > > > > I can do more than insinuating: a VCS does not allow easily browsing and > > examining patches. It doesn’t prevent it, but solely, it is not > > sufficient. > > Just like a debian/patches is far from sufficient for presenting patches > in a generally usable or understandable format
How so ? I have seen several times non-Debian upstream developers downloading diff.gz from packages.debian.org (which is quite popular location) gunzip and patch < diff, then having a look at *.patch files, and they know what has been changed to their particular upstream version (unless orig.tar.gz is not orig anymore, which could be the sad part of the story). > Coming up with a complex set of requirements that everyone has to follow > up front in their workflow[1] is not going to yeld the best results, and > I think that's my core reason for disliking Raphael's proposal. Now, if > you can come up with protocols/interfaces that can be used to > publish/communicate patches, that are managed/generated in whatever way > is most useful for the maintainer, that seems more likely to work. I personally don't think there is any need for new infrastrutures. We only need to follow some simple rules, i.e. orig.tar.gz should be really the original upstream source; diff.gz (debian/patches/ included) is what the debian developer added to it. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
