HI Reinhard,
|--==> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:18:56 +0100, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>>We would still be compliant with the git-buildpackage standards, but
>>we would simply have more branches than only master and upstream.
RT> I did not (yet) have a look at git-buildpackage at all, so may I ask you
RT> to not stress that particular tool that much? I'd very much prefer on
RT> having the workflow propoerly explained. If git-buildpackage brings
RT> documentation for a sensible workflow (and it seems that the workflow is
RT> indeed sensible), then great! less work for us.
Well, git-buildpackage is a very flexible tool, you can use it in
various ways. The default is to have a branch two branches ("master"
and "upstream") to keep track for the debian and upstream sources
respectively, which I think is a very easy and sensible approach. Have
a look here for more details:
http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.html
>>In any case if exporting patch branches does not sound good, I can
>>keep them in my private repository only, that's the beauty of git :)
RT> I think we should avoid that, at least for now.
RT> FWIW, I haven't found the "beauty" of git yet... :/
Donno, I think it is a partly a matter of habit and personal taste,
but I find it git very useful.
Ciao!
Free
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
