Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > Changing the number of commits is solving the wrong problem. The > problem that needs to be solved is including upstream commits. That's > thoroughly uninteresting for a packaging team.
Agreed. This is a direct result of rebasing Debian packaging history onto upstream VCS history, and keeping them all in the same repo as one undifferentiated history, no? It's a good illustration of why I much prefer the workflow of a separate VCS for the ‘debian/’ directory, merged with upstream source only at build time. The results of the merge are in a separate location and are never checked into VCS, they're used only for the build. See ‘git-buildpackage(1)’ for the ‘--git-overlay’ option, which AFAIK does this. That way, the history of the Debian packaging VCS is entirely about what happened to Debian packaging; upstream VCS history is elsewhere. That seems to address the trouble entirely. -- \ “Liberty, n. One of imagination's most precious possessions.” | `\ —Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8538awtt8v.fsf...@benfinney.id.au
