On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 02:34:20PM +0100, Andrea Pappacoda wrote: > Hi all, I've tried catching up with the whole thread, but didn't fully yet. > So excuse me if this has been asked/answered before. > > On Tue Dec 3, 2024 at 3:40 AM CET, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Then just make one: 'git deborig'. > > > > I appreciate not everyone is happy with this, but it solves the problem. > > It seems that we're all agreeing on trying to unify our different workflows > as much as possible.
No, there is clearly no consensus on unifying any workflows. Everyone thinks their workflow is superior and canneeds to stay. > Why do we have `git deborig`, `gbp export-orig`, `origtargz`, etc.? They are parts of different incompatible workflows. > Couldn't we decide to unify on a single "front end" command, which > chooses different backends automatically depending on the situation? That seems unlikely. It can't be a command that runs the full workflow and it can't be a set of separate commands that run separate parts of different workflows because the parts themselves are unlikely to be possible to uinify. > It would be a starting point. To new contributors, we could say, for > example, "to generate the tarball, just run origtargz", independently of > whether they use gbp, git-debrebase, no git at all, etc. Ideally one shouldn't need to run any separate commands to generate the tarball from a repo. E.g. the gbp workflow doesn't require this. Additionally, e.g. gbp expects the tarball to be in the build-dir, while no unrelated tools could know the location of the gbp build-dir. See? -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
