also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> [2009.03.09.2210 +0100]: > It is more expressive, and can give more easily access to > individual patches (e.g. for pushing them upstream) when they get > entangled with others. I'm using it because I'm convinced that it > implements the right® packaging work-flow, as no other tool we > currently have in our toolbox.
Actually, it all boils down to the distinction between who will do the conflict resolution: you or the consumer. Manoj and I had long debates about this on vcs-pkg-discuss. With quilt, you are asking all consumers to do the conflict resolution, in case a patch depends on an earlier one. With plain feature branches, you have to do the conflict resolution every time you pull them together to create a package. TopGit can do both. You can maintain a simple stack, or a queue, or anything in between. It allows^W encourages you to lean towards the latter, so if a patch really depends on another, then upstream will need both anyway. Then B depends on A. If a patch does not depend on another, then B coexists with A and can be used separately. > ... but it is, still, way more complex than legacy patch systems. > Also, it requires serious git-fu if you get stuck. Yes, it's definitely too complex right now, and just like Git, it exposes too much of the internals. I also feel it's the right direction, but it needs work. Having experience people feed back their input and patches (!) will help. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madd...@d.o> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- hamlet
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
