hi, habit looked at both, I think I prefer got-debcherry. since it created a (IMHO) cleaner history, easier for me to understand and bisect.
Manoj On August 24, 2014 9:34:29 PM PDT, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: >On Aug 24, 2014, at 08:33 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>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. > >git-dpm seems pretty easy to use as well. YMMV, but ultimately I think >both >helpers achieve the same goals. Over in debian-python@ we're having >some good >discussions related to moving the Debian Python team over to git, and >many >folks have contributed useful stories and experiences. > >I'm beginning to think that what we want is for gbp and git-dpm to >interoperate, such that any individual maintainer can use whichever >tool they >choose, but would still allow the team to adhere to consensus >recommendations, >so there's no guesswork involved. E.g. the ultimate artifacts would >end up >being the same, regardless of whether you used gbp, git-dpm, or plain >vanilla >git + quilt. One example of a superficial differences is the tag names >used >by default. They're different between the two helpers, but really >needn't be. > >-Barry -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
