]] Russ Allbery > Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> writes: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:20:20AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > >> Actually, if we really want to strictly +literally interpret the DFSG, > >> then yes, tarballs (or the directory trees they represent) are no > >> longer "the preferred form of modification" when everybody uses a DVCS > >> like git. > > > I don't think this makes sense. The tarball has never been the source: > > the files contained in the tarball are the source. The tarball is merely > > a container for them. Likewise, a version control system can be > > considered a container. > > I think it's more that one can argue that the preferred form of > modification includes revision history, the branch structure, historical > tags, and so forth.
Yup, I don't think anybody is actually particularly hung up about whether it's a git repo or something else, as long as the semantics are preserved and it's easily consumable using standard tools. (So a git or bzr repo are both ok, a Visual Sourcesafe or Perforce repo less so.) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m2wqfq614r....@rahvafeir.err.no
