On Thu, Sep 07 2017, Brian May wrote: > In general, however, when something does go badly wrong I think it will be a > lot easier to diagnose, understand, and fix with GPB PQ then with git-dpm. > git-dpm can get very messy very quickly, particularly if you forget to pull > before making changes (personally I make this mistake too frequently) or > update > to a new upstream version without using the correct git-dpm workflow - I have > seen both of these situations happen.
I concur. gbp is not without issues, but as you said, gbp is easier to reason about and fix. I don't use gbp daily. In fact, I maintain or edit existing packages not as frequently as I would like, often having to re-read the documentation along the way. The fact that gbp is better documented is a big plus, even if everything else would be equal. Simplicity goes a long way for cooperative maintenance. I'm relieved gbp is now the recommended choice.