On 08/10/2016 10:41 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > * IOW, if > you choose to use gbp-pq, am I forced to do so when I modify the same repo? > Or if you choose to use PoQ (plain 'ol quilt), will that affect how others > can co-maintain the package in git?
That's the point. If we decide to use gbp-pq, in fact, we're deciding to not decide, and anyone can use PoQ (my choice, for example). Indeed, the way to store the patches is PoQ, and you then "gbp-pq import", modify, then "gbp-pq export" and store the packaging branch like this (ie: like a PoQ branch). So, basically, we'll be back to what everyone else is doing (ie: 99% of git maintained packages in Debian as much as I saw). On 08/11/2016 01:12 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > no other special metadata present in git (you can optionally commit a > debian/gbp.conf, and I would recommend it, but it isn't required) IMO, that's required if we decide to continue using pristine-tar (which I don't think is a good idea, but let's not discuss that, as there seem to be a consensus for it). On 08/11/2016 01:12 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > Not good for gbp-pq (it works OK, but an import/export round-trip will > mangle the metadata if you don't take steps to preserve it): > > Author: Donald Duck <don...@example.com> > Description: Reticulate splines correctly > This regressed in 2.0. > . > In particular, this broke embiggening. > Last-update: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:34:00 +0100 > Origin: vendor, Debian > Forwarded: http://bugs.example.org/123 > --- > [diff goes here] > > Regards, > S If this is what gbp pq does, then that's the *right* thing (I don't remember, probably because it didn't destroy my Debian headers, which I carefully crafted by hand...). Cheers, Thomas
