Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> writes: > ]] Goswin von Brederlow > | My feeling is that 3.0 (git) format adds bloat to the source packages > | that hardly anyone ever uses, makes it that much harder for any > | non-git user to edit the source and is of little extra value when the > | maintainers git is month or years further along. > > Even if the upstream VCS has moved on, you save a bit of bandwidth by > having something that comes with half the history, even if you don't > have all of it.
Weigh that against the bandwidth spend for mirrors and for people that do not need or want the history and the extra cost in terms of needing more CD/DVD images to contain a source snapshot. Also the cost for snapshot.debian.org having to have the extra bloat for every single version uploaded. For a worst case take linux-2.6 as example. Also why would you download the source package in the first place if what you really want is a git checkout. The extra bandwidth for a git checkout would only be as much as the 3.0 (git) format would lack in history. For me a debian source package is a snapshot of a particular version of the source that exactly coresponds to the binary packages build from it. For history there is the changelog, old source packages on snapshot.debian.org (soon again) and cvs/svn/hg/git/arch repositories. My expectation is also that I can "apt-get source foo", edit some files and debuild without having to learn a new tool and completly foreign workflow. The various patch systems used with 1.0 packages destroy that somewhat but 3.0 (quilt) restores that feature again. 3.0 (git) on the other hand goes in the wrong direction as it makes the package even more special. But in the end it comes down to taste I guess. Do you want to force people to use git or are you friendly to those that don't use it? So I will shut up now before we go around the circle again. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org