Neil Williams writes ("Re: making dput a wrapper around git"):
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:48:10 +0100
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > If an upload to NEW is rejected though then the "-1" version is not
> > known to the archive and should be used again for a fixed
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:48:10 +0100
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 18/11/14 16:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> If an upload to NEW is rejected though then the "-1" version is not
> known to the archive and should be used again for a fixed upload
> shouldn't it?
No. You simply upload to NEW with use of the
On 18/11/14 16:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: making dput a wrapper around git"):
>> One of the problems with a VCS right now though is the order of events
>> required to make a tag. If I tag and then upload and my upload is
>> rejected for
Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: making dput a wrapper around git"):
> One of the problems with a VCS right now though is the order of events
> required to make a tag. If I tag and then upload and my upload is
> rejected for any reason then the tag is not valid.
dgit's answe
On 18/11/14 15:23, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> That is not a Git-specific issue, it is a general issue with source-only
>> uploads. If source-only uploads become the norm then signed tags should
>> be the same as source packages shouldn't they?
> Absolut
Hi,
Daniel Pocock:
> This is probably tangential to the ongoing DEP-14 and source-only upload
> discussions
>
> How would people feel if dput was a wrapper around git?
>
How would you feel about forking Debian and switching an all-in-git
maintainance+build infrastructure?
--
-- Matthias Urlich
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> That is not a Git-specific issue, it is a general issue with source-only
> uploads. If source-only uploads become the norm then signed tags should
> be the same as source packages shouldn't they?
Absolutely not! (Hint: .orig.tar.gz, often several. And
On 18/11/14 11:17, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/18/2014 09:45 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> How would people feel if dput was a wrapper around git?
> I think its not a good idea. It has too many problems, see below.
I agree it is not a trivial idea and is unlikely to appeal to everybody
>
Daniel Pocock writes ("making dput a wrapper around git"):
> How would people feel if dput was a wrapper around git?
If you would like to work in a world where dput was a wrapper around
git, then please install dgit and spell `dput' as `dgit push'.
If you do that then
Daniel Pocock writes:
> For packages that do use git as the VCS, dput would do a "git tag" and
> "git push", possibly using branches specifically intended for release.
I don't think ‘dput’ should be creating anything in the VCS. Instead,
the tagging and the ‘dput’ should be parallel and independ
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> How would people feel if dput was a wrapper around git?
dpkg --purge dput
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silic
Hi,
On 11/18/2014 09:45 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> How would people feel if dput was a wrapper around git?
I think its not a good idea. It has too many problems, see below.
> This wouldn't imply that maintainers must use Git as their VCS
>
> For packages that do use git as the VCS, dput would d
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:45:03 +0100
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> This is probably tangential to the ongoing DEP-14 and source-only
> upload discussions
>
> How would people feel if dput was a wrapper around git?
That's a daft idea. Please drop it.
It presumes that dput is only used for Debian uploads
This is probably tangential to the ongoing DEP-14 and source-only upload
discussions
How would people feel if dput was a wrapper around git?
This wouldn't imply that maintainers must use Git as their VCS
For packages that do use git as the VCS, dput would do a "git tag" and
"git push", possibl
14 matches
Mail list logo
