On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:40:18PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:26:46AM -0500, Christian Perrier wrote: > > /me dances happily when learning that I will have to learn Yet Another > > Source Control Management System if I want to continue maintaining the > > debconf l10n. > > > > Sure, this is a very minor aspect of the development of X packages, > > but if my vote has some importance, it would definitely go for "stick > > with SVN". > > FWIW, my vote (now from a purely upstream perspective) is to go with > git, despite my public reservations about git at the time we moved. > > If the eventual goal is to get all the patches merged upstream -- and I > really hope it is -- then tracking git makes this infinitely easier, and > infinitely more appealing from both sides to do so. > > (But maybe I'm missing something, because I never saw the point of the > vendor branches.)
Yeah, getting all our patches merged upstream is of course a goal of mine, so this is heartening. Just out of curiosity, how would git be more helpful than producing a diff and applying it to the upstream tree, followed by commit 'n push? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
