Andreas Tille writes ("VCS (Was: Questions for all candidates)"):
> Dear Jonathan,
> > How do you feel about dgit
>
> As long as dgit is seen as just another interface (like gbp), I'm
> perfectly fine with it. Ultimately, the choice depends on your workflow.
> While I personally use gbp, I've seen dgit in action with Salsa, and if
> it fits the needs of others, that's great.
I just wanted to address a confusion evident in Andreas's reply.
Adopting dgit doesn't change the way a maintainer edits their package.
dgit is in no way an *alternative* to gbp. gbp users can use dgit
and will probably find it improves their lives.
If you're using gbp, uploading with dgit is an improvement and
simplification *of the upload step*. You start directly from the gbp
main branch, say `dgit push-source --gbp`, and poof! it's done.
You can forget whatever upload runes you have in your shell history.
On this "plug" topic, just earlier today, a happy user wrote to us:
| Btw, I wish I had looked at dgit earlier,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
