On May 01, 2015, at 06:30 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote: >The big difference would be SVN history. That's the interesting part of >my import.
I wonder if there are opportunities to combine the two approaches? >> Also, what about patch regime? The above sets up git-dpm early on, >> including tag names, etc. so after the conversion you can just start using >> it to manage patches. > >Doing that in a mass conversion worried me, because the dpm transform >isn't perfectly reversible. Can you elaborate? >If we're going to tag uploads in the package's history, I'd like them to >perfectly correspond to uploads to the archive. > >I think conversion to DPM is something we do to all the packages, at a >single point in time, not retroactively. Ah, so after we convert, if we decide to use git-dpm, then we set that up just on the latest snapshot? >> I know we haven't yet decided on a patch regime, but we should... soon! :) > >Yes, that's the big decision in front of us, now. Indeed. Also, I just saw that git-buildpackage(1) has gone away. It seem like all we have now is gbp(1) but that has a different cli, and I think it has pq built-in. Sigh. I'll have to spend some time getting my non-patch-based workflow ported over to the new cli. Maybe it's worth taking the opportunity to see if pq has gotten better or easier to use. Cheers, -Barry -- 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/20150501104640.2163c...@anarchist.wooz.org
