Tollef Fog Heen <[email protected]> writes:
> ]] Goswin von Brederlow
>
> | Tollef Fog Heen <[email protected]> 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.
>
> If we (as I do) consider history part of the source, that size increase
> is irrelevant.
>
> | 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.
>
> Because I want to add a patch that changes a behaviour in a stable
> package, and I want to add that patch in a way that gives me the least
> work, both when writing it, but also when bringing it forward. Also, my
> mirror might be local; git.d.o and random upstream repositories
> certainly are not.
>
> | 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.
>
> I'm trying to come up with a reasonable workflow rather than getting
> entangled in what intricasies of the different source package formats.
> At the moment, what I want is best done with a bundle in debian/ and a
> 3.0 (native) package and a README.source.
>
> | 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.
>
> I don't see why you think «ship the history with the package» (which is
> what I want to do) implies that you can't do apt-get source foo ; cd
> foo-* ; hack.
It currently implies that. The 3.0 (git) format, last I tried, is not
transparent to the user like 3.0 (quilt) is.
I'm not saying it can't be made equaliy transparent but you will have
your work cut out there.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
