On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 04:34:05 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 02/20/2013 12:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > This all seems to assume full source branches which is not something I'm > > interested in participating in at all. I've tried it and I find it very > > difficult to work with. > > > > Currently we have one VCS and one package layout. In the end, we should > > have that still. Anything else raises a substantial barrier to > > collaboration. > > > > Scott K > > Would you care explaining why full source branches is difficult to work > with?
First, full source repositories are much larger than debian only repositories. I don't have a full checkout of all team packages locally, so that means if I'm going to touch a package I don't have to download, it's more time, bandwidth, etc. Even for a new upstream version, debian directory in the repository and upstream tarball is still smaller. Second, I think Debian packaging work and upstream's product should be distinct in the source package. The source package is what Debian as a project ships as the source for DFSG purposes and it should be useful. "Here's a huge mass of code and to understand what we did to it, you need to refer to this external repository (VCS)" is not socially acceptable to me. Third, I have yet to see a workflow for maintaining debian/patches in a VCS as part of a full source branch that was not more work than just having the patches in a debian/patches and letting dpkg handle getting them applied/ unapplied. Finally, I have upstreams that use cvs, svn, bzr, and git. Trying to figure out a workflow that integrates all those just seems impossible. I've used partial (debian dir) VCS branches for years in both Debian and Ubuntu (where it's bzr, so I've used a DVCS) and I don't see any upside at all to full source. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1460350.rKONIhgERt@scott-latitude-e6320
