Le Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:35:04AM +0100, Colin Watson a écrit : > > Having followed it up after last year's DebConf, I've been absolutely > sold on git-dpm, FWIW; I find it does a great job of making the patch > queue pleasant to maintain in a git-native style while providing a nice > easy-to-read export to 3.0 (quilt) - that is, you don't actually use > quilt manually. At that point 3.0 (quilt) makes a lot of sense to me as > an automatable serialisation of upstream + patch queue + packaging with > a minimum of package-specific code, and the only way in which it imposes > a patch system is that the tools I'm using need to export to it (which > is really not that much more than git format-patch with some care about > file names, so no big deal, and people can still inspect and modify my > source packages without my fancy tools). … > gbp-pq is of course fairly similar. I looked at both although I admit > that I only experimented extensively with git-dpm. They both look like > they should get the job done, but git-dpm just seemed more featureful > and polished to me based on its documentation, and I really like the way > it handles the results of rebasing the patch queue.
Thanks a lot Colin for your inspiring answer. After reading it, I tested both tools and I chose gbp-pq because my packaging team is already using git-buildpackage a lot (and because git-dpm quilckly gave me an error). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20140721135141.gb25...@falafel.plessy.net
