On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Martín Ferrari <tin...@tincho.org> wrote: > 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?
I don’t want to derail this thread too much, so I’ll keep it brief: Regarding repos being brittle: in the past, I’ve often found that when messing up (e.g. when incorrectly importing a new upstream version, or doing an incorrect merge of some sort), the easiest way to undo is to delete the repository and start from scratch. Regarding multiple projects being confusing: I find the history of git repositories often not that easy to understand, even though I work with git daily since over 9 years. When multiple branches are involved, this becomes even harder. Before running any command in an upstream-tracking git packaging repo, I need to stop and think about how this affects the repo as a whole. Maybe this gets easier over time, but I do like the mental simplicity of having everything upstream-related nicely contained in a tarball. > >> 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 -- Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers