On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 01:28 -0400, Jacob Godserv wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:13, Enrico Weigelt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've already explained the strategy behind the git repo (and not > > doing plaintext patches). Please refer to my paper, and my other > > mails posted recently on this list. > > I'm not quite sure I understand your response here. He didn't ask for > you to explain the strategy. He asked for you to provide plain-text > patches.
I do understand the response, because part of the strategy mentioned *is* not to provide plain-text patches, but instead manage them, possibly jointly with other distributions, in a midstream repository. From the comments it looks like most developers (including me) won't be happy to switch to such an intermediate point at the moment. Perhaps the best approach would be to focus on packages with unmaintained or abandoned upstreams. For those packages there is a much more clear benefit of pooling together distribution patches. Kind regards, Hans
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
