Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> writes: > Of course unreachable objects should be pruned from a 3.0 (git) package. > But I believe the FTP team's concerns are about *reachable* objects that > may be copyright violations. It is hard enough to check this for one > version.
I think Adam's point is that there's a one-to-one correspondance between a 3.0 (quilt) package and a 3.0 (git) package that consists solely of an import of the most recent upstream source plus one commit per patch. While this is true, and has been recognized since the early days of the 3.0 (git) conversation, the problem with this format is that it's not in any way a "natural" Git repository. It's unlikely that anyone would use that format to do serious work with Git. It's therefore an export format, and it's not completely clear exactly how you would generate that export format from an arbitrary maintainer Git repository other than doing pretty much exactly what the 3.0 (quilt) format is already doing. Or whether that format would be useful as an import format, since it's not entirely obvious that's a useful starting point for bootstrapping to a real Git repository one would use for serious packaging work. It therefore has some minor possible benefits in terms of representation (and some drawbacks -- the patches are harder to extract for anyone who isn't already using Git), but it doesn't seem to change any of the fundamentals of the current situation. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hadgek8r....@windlord.stanford.edu
