On 3 November 2014 21:32, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Ian Jackson [141103 19:13]:
>> The point is that the dgit user probably will have done git diff
>> before dgit build / push. git diff provides a more convenient diffing
>> tool than debdiff, and eyeballing the same thing twice is makework.
>
* Ian Jackson [141103 19:13]:
> The point is that the dgit user probably will have done git diff
> before dgit build / push. git diff provides a more convenient diffing
> tool than debdiff, and eyeballing the same thing twice is makework.
git diff is a nice tool. But it has it limits. Try detect
Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm"):
> To do an NMU, one has to generate a debdiff anyway to post it to the
> bug report (as the rules for NMUs mandate).
Generating it and reading it are two different things.
As I say, I intend for dgit to be able to send the debdif
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> different as with other NMUs? Where is the difference to
Thanks, you described this better than I could.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
wit
* Ian Jackson [141030 13:42]:
> Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm"):
> > – I’d prefer users of even dgit, no matter how good it may be, to
> > not rely on that.
>
> Again, why ?
To do an NMU, one has to generate a debdiff anyway to post it to the
bu
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm"):
> Ian Jackson dixit:
> [ NMU ]
> >A dgit user should be able to do this without reading the debdiff:
>
> This is a dangerous habit to get into
Why ?
Of course for this NMU approach to be a good one, dgit needs to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:36:24AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > This would mean a much more expensive build by default, please don't.
>
> git-pbuilder uses cowbulder by default (not bare-bone pbuilder), so it
> is not as slow as pbuilder.
Yes, but it is a lot slower than a plain build on the curr
Le Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:09:03PM -0500, Jose-Luis Rivas a écrit :
> On 29/10/14, 07:44pm, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >
> > This is a dangerous habit to get into – I’d prefer users of even
> > dgit, no matter how good it may be, to not rely on that. This is
> > a social issue, not a technical one.
On 29/10/14, 07:44pm, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Ian Jackson dixit:
>
> [ NMU ]
> >A dgit user should be able to do this without reading the debdiff:
>
> This is a dangerous habit to get into – I’d prefer users of even
> dgit, no matter how good it may be, to not rely on that. This is
> a social is
Ian Jackson dixit:
[ NMU ]
>A dgit user should be able to do this without reading the debdiff:
This is a dangerous habit to get into – I’d prefer users of even
dgit, no matter how good it may be, to not rely on that. This is
a social issue, not a technical one.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
„Cool, /usr/s
On Oct 29, 2014, at 01:47 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>I got the impression that sbuild is winning over pbuilder BICBW.
Especially now that bug #607228 has been fixed!
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:54:41AM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:32:04PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:06:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Dimitri John Ledkov writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm (was Re:
> &g
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:32:04PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:06:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Dimitri John Ledkov writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm (was Re: Standardizing
> > the layout of git packaging repositories)"):
> > > dpkg-
Guido Günther writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm (was Re: Standardizing the layout
of git packaging repositories)"):
> I do wonder if we should switch to using git-pbuilder by default and
> rather offer to invoke 'git-pbuilder create' in case we don't find a
>
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm (was Re: Standardizing the layout
of git packaging repositories)"):
> On 29/10/14 12:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The contents of the default ignore
> > list is in dpkg-source, but it is not enabled unless the caller says
> &g
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:06:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm (was Re: Standardizing the
> layout of git packaging repositories)"):
> > dpkg-source removes it, by default, for 3.0 based formats as it's part
> > of
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm"):
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > maintainers of other tools. It does seem to me to imply that using
> > git-buildpackage to do an NMU is risky, because:
>
> Yes, it is – anything other than t
On 29/10/14 12:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The contents of the default ignore
> list is in dpkg-source, but it is not enabled unless the caller says
> -I. git-buildpackage passes -I.
To be completely clear (because I misread it twice in a row), you mean
that it is not enabled unless the caller uses
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> maintainers of other tools. It does seem to me to imply that using
> git-buildpackage to do an NMU is risky, because:
Yes, it is – anything other than the standard Debian tool
(dpkg-buildpackage) is.
> If some user of git-buildpackage (without dgit) tri
[resending because my MUA failed to mangle the headers]
Dimitri John Ledkov writes ("Re: dgit and git-dpm (was Re: Standardizing the
layout of git packaging repositories)"):
> dpkg-source removes it, by default, for 3.0 based formats as it's part
> of the default igno
On 29 October 2014 05:39, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 07:17:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Brian May writes ("Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging
>> repositories"):
>> > However, with git-dpm, no branch is ever destroyed. Every branch is always
>> > merged into the
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 07:17:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Brian May writes ("Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging
> repositories"):
> > However, with git-dpm, no branch is ever destroyed. Every branch is always
> > merged into the Debian branch. The Debian branch itself always heads
Brian May writes ("Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories"):
> However, with git-dpm, no branch is ever destroyed. Every branch is always
> merged into the Debian branch. The Debian branch itself always heads in a
> single forward direction and this branch is never rebased. Furt
23 matches
Mail list logo
