On 20/08/17 18:46, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > Side note, not meant to persuade anyone one way or the other: I just > realized why I never saw any appeal in that argument: I find git > packaging (or git in general?) too brittle and confusing to keep what > I consider are multiple projects in the same repository.
Uhm.. I don't really have that feeling. Could you elaborate more? > When I need to find out something about upstream repositories, I > usually use the GitHub web interface, or my local gopath. I never use > the git packaging repos, regardless of whether they have history or > not. Heh, I hate the github web interface, can't compare to gitk, git log, etc :) Also, I don't even have a go path. To this day I get confused every time I try to build things by hand! > git config --add remote.origin.push "+refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*" > git config --add remote.origin.push "+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*" The problem with this is that you push all tags and branches, even if they are coming from upstream (I know, not relevant for you). I try to keep the alioth repo free from that. > But note that gbp recently gained “gbp push”: > https://git.sigxcpu.org/cgit/git-buildpackage//commit/?id=cbacdfb40ca35633da06e9e05497ac0fb56cc4f9 > It’s included in 0.9.0~exp2, but I haven’t tried it out yet. > Hopefully, it makes both our extra setup steps unnecessary :). Oh, cool, I should try it! > Given that you _also_ maintain history in git, using gbp dch seems > like significantly cutting down the number of commands. Is there any > rationale behind your decision to not use gbp dch, or are you just > used to this way? :) Mostly historical reasons and muscle memory :) -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho) _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers