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
> 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”:
>> 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 mailing list