On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:27 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
> `git merge` is smarter than you think :)
Thanks for the hint! Reading again the manual, and `git merge
--strategy=ours` really keeps the history clean. Previously when I
tried to attempt this work flow, I'm not able to make the history
Hello Shengjing,
On Sat, Jul 07 2018, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> I'm not against this. My initial proposal is to keep the upstream git
> history. Let me describe my initial proposal a little more.
>
> Branch "upstream":
> This branch is same as upstream. Even there're files listed in
>
Hi Sean,
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 3:55 PM Sean Whitton wrote
> > I'm suspect if you really need upstream git log in the scenery you
> > described. What you really care is the packaging history. [...]
> > However, if you really care dgit user. I may ask, what you want the
> > dfsg branch looks
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#812721: gbp could filter out Files-Excluded:
entries when committing to the pristine-tar branch"):
> It is useful to provide the full upstream git history to users because
> they can use tools like `git bisect` to figure out how to fix bugs. The
>
Hello Shengjing,
On Thu, Jul 05 2018, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> I'm suspect if you really need upstream git log in the scenery you
> described. What you really care is the packaging history. [...]
> However, if you really care dgit user. I may ask, what you want the
> dfsg branch looks like? Do
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 06 2018, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> On 05/07/18 14:19, Guido Günther wrote:
>
>>> So IMHO, the upstream branch should only contain upstream commits.
>>> Then question comes to how we create the dfsg orig tarball.
>>
>> Just create a commit with the files filtered out and tag it
On 05/07/18 14:19, Guido Günther wrote:
>> So IMHO, the upstream branch should only contain upstream commits.
>> Then question comes to how we create the dfsg orig tarball.
>
> Just create a commit with the files filtered out and tag it approriately
> (with the original commit as parent). gbp
Hi,
(should we trim the cc: list a bit)?
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 06:05:10PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> Here's my thoughts about the workflow with Files-Excluded.
>
> 1. Upstream git history is imported *as is* in upstream branch. If we
> want to maintain a upstream branch without some files,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:51 PM Ian Jackson
wrote:
> My objective here is to publish to the Debian user the source code of
> the package they are using.
>
> If upstream are using git, then the user should get a git branch which
> contains the upstream history.
>
I'm suspect if you really need
Shengjing Zhu writes ("Re: Bug#812721: gbp could filter out Files-Excluded:
entries when committing to the pristine-tar branch"):
> > What I really care about is that this means that users cannot get a
> > sensible git history for packages done this way.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:19 PM Ian Jackson
wrote:
> If you are using a gitish workflow, I don't think the Files-Excluded
> should affect only the .orig. Rather, there should be a
> dfsg-laundered git tree or branch too.
>
> For examples of how we-the-dgit-maintainers suggest users do these
>
Shengjing Zhu writes ("Re: Bug#812721: gbp could filter out Files-Excluded:
entries when committing to the pristine-tar branch"):
> Here's my thoughts about the workflow with Files-Excluded.
>
> 1. Upstream git history is imported *as is* in upstream branch. If we
> want
Here's my thoughts about the workflow with Files-Excluded.
1. Upstream git history is imported *as is* in upstream branch. If we
want to maintain a upstream branch without some files, then we already
lost/mess up with the upstream history. Then why not use uscan git mode to
import the tarball,
Hi,
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:20:59AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, May 24 2018, Guido Günther wrote:
>
> > There's no such logic there yet. FWIW I've added gbp-import-ref
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/agx/git-buildpackage/commit/1592882c38fcbb107332d9a0a63b8da4e0bf8a48
>
Hello,
On Thu, May 24 2018, Guido Günther wrote:
> There's no such logic there yet. FWIW I've added gbp-import-ref
>
>
> https://github.com/agx/git-buildpackage/commit/1592882c38fcbb107332d9a0a63b8da4e0bf8a48
>
> so we can now look into adding the proper filtering and logic for
> creating
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:42:26PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>I looked into implementing the discussed gbp import-git subcommand. Find
>attached preliminary patches. In my tests, the new subcommand tags the
>upstream branch and imports it correctly, but perhaps I missed
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:42:26PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> I looked into implementing the discussed gbp import-git subcommand. Find
> attached preliminary patches. In my tests, the new subcommand tags the
> upstream branch and imports it correctly, but perhaps I missed something.
>
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > or (since upstream is somewhat redundant):
>
> I don’t feel that “upstream” is redundant. I think the contents of a branch
> should be obvious from the name.
Ack.
> The “pristine” namespace could easily be confused with “pristine-tar”, so
> I’d
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:04:32PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Guido Günther wrote:
[..snip..]
> > To add to the bikeshed: I like path like separation in git:
> >
> > upstream/filtered/latest
> >
> > or (since upstream is somewhat
I looked into implementing the discussed gbp import-git subcommand. Find
attached preliminary patches. In my tests, the new subcommand tags the
upstream branch and imports it correctly, but perhaps I missed something.
Filtering is not yet considered at all. Feedback/review welcome (or, feel
free
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:25:09AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > • branch “upstream/latest” tracks an upstream branch, e.g. remote
> > > “upstream”, branch “master”.
> > >
> > > • branch
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:25:09AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > • branch “upstream/latest” tracks an upstream branch, e.g. remote
> > “upstream”, branch “master”.
> >
> > • branch “upstream/latest-filtered” contains a filtered version of that
> > branch, whose commits would be tagged
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > I think that if you want to change this, then we should discuss it on
> > debian-devel.
> >
> > If everything comes down to the fact that you don't find a good name, I'm
> > happy to throw a few suggestions:
> > What about "pristine-upstream"
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2018, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > > > If yes, then I don’t particularly like the name “nondfsg/latest”, as
> > > > it is a double-negative, but describes a very common case. Why not
> > > > keep
Hi,
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > > If yes, then I don’t particularly like the name “nondfsg/latest”, as
> > > it is a double-negative, but describes a very common case. Why not
> > > keep calling it “upstream”, or “upstream/latest” if symmetry is
> > > desired?
> >
> > Isn't
[+cc raphael (listed as DEP-14 driver)]
Sorry for the long delay.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:07:54PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply. Answers inline:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:59
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:07:54PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. Answers inline:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 05:24:05PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> >> Hi Guido,
> >>
> >> The
Thanks for your reply. Answers inline:
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 05:24:05PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>> Hi Guido,
>>
>> The pkg-go team is currently discussing changes to its workflow, and
>> we’d be interested
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 12:15:51PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:13:07PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:59:41 +0100 Guido =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?=
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > My first reaction was to teach gbp
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:13:07PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:59:41 +0100 Guido =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?=
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > My first reaction was to teach gbp import-orig to have a
> >
> > gbp import-orig "git-ref"
> >
> > mode that would do
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:59:41 +0100 Guido =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?=
wrote:
> Hi,
> My first reaction was to teach gbp import-orig to have a
>
> gbp import-orig "git-ref"
>
> mode that would do the right thing but I now think having
>
> gbp update "git-ref"
>
> that
>
>
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 05:24:05PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Guido,
>
> The pkg-go team is currently discussing changes to its workflow, and
> we’d be interested in resolving this feature request.
Can you provide a pointer to the discussion?
>
> Guido Günther
Hi Guido,
The pkg-go team is currently discussing changes to its workflow, and
we’d be interested in resolving this feature request.
Guido Günther writes:
> I would rather do this with a dfsg-clean branch. You delete once and
> then use git tools from there on.
Searching for
Package: git-buildpackage
Version: 0.7.1
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
When uscan is used to generate an upstream tarball, it filters out files
listed in the Files-Excluded: section of the debian/copyright file and
appends +dfsg to the tarball's version. This can then be imported to
the
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:02:50PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Package: git-buildpackage
> Version: 0.7.1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> When uscan is used to generate an upstream tarball, it filters out files
> listed in the Files-Excluded: section of the debian/copyright
35 matches
Mail list logo