On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is there any benefit of using guilt over having a branch with the >> patches applied? It would sure be simpler for users and should also be >> simpler for maintainers of the repository. > > I tried to do something like this, but it really looks like I can't > both have the patches in a convenient form for Ian to apply, and also > maintain a branch with the patches applied (because each individual > patch changes over time).
Don't you have this problem in both cases? If the changes are independent, it shouldn't matter whether they are in the form of a patch file or in git (in which case they can be extracted as patches). If the changes are dependent, then there's no way around that in *.patch files either - they have to be applied in the right order, which would be no different than having them in git. I don't have much practical experience but from observation the projects I follow (kernel, git itself, cairo, factor) use this model of multiple repositories and rely on git's sophisticated merging (including ability to cherry-pick changes from other repositories) for applying contributions. Of course it all depends on what form Ian would find convenient - being relatively new to git I still find it intimidating so I can appreciate the fact that even though git can probably support an efficient workflow for all parties, learning that workflow might not be easy. -- kjk _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
