Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes: > On 24 August 2014 04:24, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote:
>> 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. > I would find it annoying to keep around lots of branches in the hope > that one day upstream might integrate them. (One reason I also like > Gerrit) > I like to minimize the number of branches I have, so I can easily keep > track of what I am actually working on. > More then likely, in X years time when upstream looks at it, the branch > will be gone. Yeah, exactly. That's the thing that ended up annoying me about the feature branch approach. gbp pq handles that in a fairly nice way and lets you not have to deal with multiple branches, and git-dpm I believe does as well (although I've not personally used it). > What do you use instead? quilt is the only tool I know who to use here, > and it is starting to irritate me - I keep making changes and forgetting > to add the files to the patch first, and screwing everything up. What > tool(s) should I learn to solve this? git-buildpackage's gbp pq system is what I use. I believe git-dpm is more complicated and comprehensive, but gbp pq is simple enough in its operations that it doesn't take long to wrap your mind around it. -- 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/87d2bpw8da....@hope.eyrie.org
