Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves
from tarballs to git"):
> On Tue, 07 May 2019 at 19:25:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > What I am primarily advocating for in this thread is that maintainers
> > should choose `dgit push-source' over `dput' (where this is possible).
> > This is the only way for a maintainer to provide users with the git
> > history in a sensible form (ie, a form which does not require the user
> > to know what special git practices the maintainer has adopted).
>
> I think you're implicitly asserting here that the tree that exists in
> a dgit commit (upstream source as conveyed by the orig tarball, with
> debian/ added, with patches applied if any) is the only sensible form
> for the git history of a Debian source package, and I don't think that's
> something that has consensus.
Sorry, I was not clear. My view is much more nuanced than that.
I think that
- we should publish one consistent form to our users
- this is the only sensible form for that.
I do not think that this is the only sensible form for working within
Debian. I am not trying to abolish patches-unapplied.
Happily it is possible to convert most other forms to that.
(That's kind of implied by being able to build the thing.)
> I realise that you think (some or all of) those other "shapes" are not
> sensible,
No, many of these (most of them) are completely fine. My word
`sensible' there was only in the context of a form to provide to those
users who want to change how their computer behaves, without learning
a lot of obscure Debian-specific source code management stuff.
> I don't think it's coincidence that many of the larger teams in Debian,
> in particular Perl and Python, have ended up with patches-unapplied.
Indeed not. I am not trying to change that.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
