* Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> [120119 02:29]: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 03:47:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > There is a lot of different opinions about wether the format is sane at > > all. A problem with the basic idea/design of 3.0 (git) as opposed to the > > maturity of the implementation. > > It is strictly better than 3.0 (quilt). For every set of tree+patches > representable by quilt, you can produce a shallow git repository that > contains exactly the same bits of data and nothing more.
This depends how you define "better". A source format is my eyes a way to communicate with our users and the overall comunity. A source format that only has the advantage of not caring if modifications to the upstream source are not easily reviewable[1] and makes it harder for the overall community to see our part[2] is not better. It is worse. To avoid me repeating too much, see also http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/09/msg00484.html Bernhard R. Link [1] If you have a set of disjoint modifications or of modifications that do not need some additional magic merging is trivially translateable to a quilt series. [2] I once for some package looked what changes other distributions had, never had I had that many different VCSes installed. Even if upstream uses some vcs, there surely will be some day a better one comes out or upstream changes for other reasons, so not even using the same as upstream helps to avoid that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120119115652.ga28...@server.brlink.eu
