Ian Jackson writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> > I cannot comment on other the workflows of specific tools, mostly
> > because I have never managed to find one that would solve some problems
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> I cannot comment on other the workflows of specific tools, mostly
> because I have never managed to find one that would solve some problems
> that I have, but my own packages do not require anything like that
On Wed, Mar 23 2016, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:57:59PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23 2016, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> And creates a source package that does not correspond to my
>> repository. I don’t need to have a ./debian/patches in my repositor
On Mar 24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> But I think that someone who knows how to use git should be able to
> get the source code for a package in Debian, as a git branch, and
> modify that source code, and share it, and so on, without needing to
> deal with quilt, or learn any of dpkg-source --commit, g
(I'm replying to Manoj and Marco, almost alternately, in one message.
Sorry if that's confusing...)
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> On Wed, Mar 23 2016, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Having the alleged needs of naive users dictate the des
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:57:59PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23 2016, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:32:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> >> > On Mo
On Wed, Mar 23 2016, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:32:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
>> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:19:01AM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
>> > > Ah yes, source
On Wed, Mar 23 2016, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 23, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Obviously, for dgit to be useful, it has to define a standard
>> interchange format. That format has to be patches-applied because
>> otherwise naive users can't work with the source code properly.
> Having the alleged
On Wed, Mar 23 2016, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
>> I like the general idea of dgit, but I will never use it as long as it
>> requires committing patched trees.
>
> Obviously, for dgit to be useful, it has to de
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:32:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Please don't use source format `3.0 (quilt)', it sucks.
>
> Could you tell us what other downsides it has, besides quilt?
> All othe
On Mar 23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Obviously, for dgit to be useful, it has to define a standard
> interchange format. That format has to be patches-applied because
> otherwise naive users can't work with the source code properly.
Having the alleged needs of naive users dictate the design of our to
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> I like the general idea of dgit, but I will never use it as long as it
> requires committing patched trees.
Obviously, for dgit to be useful, it has to define a standard
interchange format. That format has to be pa
Brian May writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> I think the single-debian-patch makes doing security updates a lot
> harder. Particularly if one distribution has been patched, and the patch
> needs to be ported to other distributions.
>
> Sure, you might be a
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:32:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:19:01AM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> > > Ah yes, source format 1.0 fits better here. Thanks for the pointer an
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:19:01AM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> > Ah yes, source format 1.0 fits better here. Thanks for the pointer and
> > comments (Manoj, too).
>
> Please don't use source for
On Mar 22, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Aside: I do like separating Debian deltas from upstream pristine source
> because I find them easier to track as upstream changes. So I'm still a fan
> of 3.0-quilt but I understand the problems involved, and I'm sure there's a
> git-ier way of making Debian delt
Barry Warsaw writes:
> Even if I didn't like 3.0-quilt, I think it's clear that dgit has to work well
> with such package formats as it will be a long time, if ever that a maintainer
> won't have to walk up to a quiltified package to do some work on. I'm not
> personally a fan of single-debian-p
On Mar 19, 2016, at 04:27 PM, Daniel Stender wrote:
>dealing with Dgit beyond a "simple" workflow (clone/fetch - make changes -
>dgit push) I wanted to poll for workflows towards new upstream tarballs and,
>connected to that, the treatment of patches.
I haven't used dgit for anything real yet, bu
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:19:01AM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> On 20.03.2016 13:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Another easy approach is to switch to a non-quilt source format. This
> > will work if you don't need the other things that `3.0 (quilt)' does.
>
> Ah yes, source format 1.0 fits better h
On 20.03.2016 13:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Stender writes ("a poll for Dgit workflows"):
>> I've experimented with applying `gbp import-orig` on an extra
>> upstream branch and merging into e.g. dgit/sid, but this seems to be
>> substandard because `dgi
Daniel Stender writes ("a poll for Dgit workflows"):
> I've experimented with applying `gbp import-orig` on an extra
> upstream branch and merging into e.g. dgit/sid, but this seems to be
> substandard because `dgit quilt-fixup` wants to quiltify all the
> changes in th
On March 19, 2016 8:27:43 AM PDT, Daniel Stender wrote:
>Hi,
>
>dealing with Dgit beyond a "simple" workflow (clone/fetch - make
>changes - dgit push) I
>wanted to poll for workflows towards new upstream tarballs and,
>connected to that, the
>treatment of patches.
My work flow is probably not
Hi,
dealing with Dgit beyond a "simple" workflow (clone/fetch - make changes - dgit
push) I
wanted to poll for workflows towards new upstream tarballs and, connected to
that, the
treatment of patches.
I've experimented with applying `gbp import-orig` on an extra upstream branch
and merging int
23 matches
Mail list logo
