On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 05 2017, Brian May <b...@debian.org> wrote: > > Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> writes: > > > >> There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to > >> use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it produces a messy history when > >> you are working on your patches and I often run into problems with > >> .debian/.git-dpm file it maintains (import a new upstream, make some > >> changes, notice that somebody else also pushed a change, pull --rebase, > >> everything is broken). Since we started using it, we opened a lot of bug > >> reports and not a single one of them has been fixed. I think that nobody > >> wants to work on it because it is an extremely fragile tool and the > >> first one to try to fix it will inherit of all the problems to solve. > > > > It also has a number of bugs that are not getting fixed. > > Yeah, I think we heard before that git-dpm is not being maintained. I > said it, Vincent said it in his reply, and now you are saying it > again. No one is disputing the point. > > > Plus if conflicts occur because multiple people unexpectedly make > > changes at the same time it (i.e. you can't push because somebody else > > already pushed changes) can be a world of confusion trying to sort out > > the mess. > > Yes, it is a mess. But I don't think it's any worse than having to > resolve conflicts in debian/patches/, which is the equivalent problem > when multiple people use gbp at the same time.
When this happens you do a "gbp pq import" and have the full power of git rebas at your hands. Cheers, -- Guido
