On 28 January 2013 18:17, Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:36:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> writes: >> > ]] Gergely Nagy >> >> >> No, not really. I don't really care what tools one uses, as long as the >> >> result is reasonably easy *and* reliable to work with. Since VCS can be >> >> stale, and quite often does not include neither NMUs, nor backports, >> >> that fails the reliable requirement. >> >> > It sounds like you are arguing that we should just ship the the >> > repository in the source package, then. No chance of it ever getting >> > out of date, trivial to find the merge points and missing patches >> > between two packages and fits much better with a VCS-driven workflow. >> >> Yes, many of us would like that, which is why it's been repeatedly >> discussed at Debconfs, but no one has come up with a good solution to the >> fact that this requires reviewing the entire VCS archive for DFSG-freeness >> and rewriting history if any non-free code is ever introduced in it. (Or, >> well, changing the requirements we have around source package freeness, >> but that seems less likely.) > > Maybe I forgot the answer, but at least in terms of git and the dpkg > 3.0 (git) format, why can't we simply make use of shallow cloning? We
How many revisions does one need to shallow clone to have an .orig. tree and a debian tree? As one commonly still wants to see what changes are applied if any. If the answer is 2 and git can diff them, than it's great. (Or 3 to include pristine-tar delta?! do we still care about pristine-tar at this point?!) Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUhmTL45FVNXkJe-DCwSr8E=nnmdvvem0yaadjpg1kc...@mail.gmail.com
