Matthias Urlichs <matth...@urlichs.de> writes: > Russ Allbery: >> It's somewhat harder to maintain, but it's vastly better for >> communicating to upstream or to other distributions.
> Mmh. Whenever Upstream uses git, my favorite method of sending a patch > is to put the fix in a separate branch, and then tell ^w ask them to > "git pull" it. Right, exactly. That's super-annoying to do if you were keeping everything mixed together in the master branch, much easier if you were keeping separate branches for each fix but keeping those separate branches is itself incredibly annoying, and utterly trivial if you're using gbp pq or git-dpm. The latter take a little bit of getting used to, and are then almost as fast as just making changes directly in Git, but let you actually send isolated fixes upstream. This use case is *exactly* why I started using separated patches and the 3.0 (quilt) format. I would never use quilt directly. Been there, done that, have no interest in doing it again. I like Git. But using it as an export format for patch-queue branches works really well. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- 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/8761hjhxmv....@hope.eyrie.org
