Josselin Mouette writes (Re: Centralized darcs):
Maybe you shouldn't assume all people who like to code and debug aren't
clueful enough to run diff. Putting my changes in a patch is the most
useful way to integrate them in a Debian package *and* to forward them
upstream. It is far less complex
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Centralized darcs):
In my experience, the key difference between whether or not I want to use
a patch system like quilt is whether I have an upstream to which I need to
feed self-contained patches that may go unapplied for extended periods of
time. When I'm
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Centralized darcs):
In my experience, the key difference between whether or not I want to
use a patch system like quilt is whether I have an upstream to which I
need to feed self-contained patches that may go unapplied
Le mercredi 09 août 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Did you read the contortions in my previous posting ? Obviously I
know how to use diff. The problem is that with patch systems I
_can't_ just apply my universal knowledge about dpkg-source and diff
and so forth. I have to learn
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:53:08AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Note that there are ways of dealing with the situation you describe
above which don't break the standard model. For example, you could have
the .diff.gz specify the _patched_ source
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:12:15AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
What I need as someone working on a package for which I'm not the
maintainer is this:
dpkg-source -x must give me something I can immediately edit and diff
on the resulting tree after I've edited and built it must produce a
sane
In every single patch system I've encountered, you can run debian/rules
patch and get the patched source. It's only one more command and I consider
it universal for all patch systems deployed in Debian.
In some cases, this will fail if you don't have the build-dependencies
installed.
--
To
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:14:43PM +, David Nusinow wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:12:15AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
What I need as someone working on a package for which I'm not the
maintainer is this:
dpkg-source -x must give me something I can immediately edit and diff
on the
* John Goerzen wrote:
Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG
signatures even.
That's the only feature I miss after I switched from darcs to
mercurial.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On 06/08/06, Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* John Goerzen wrote:
Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG
signatures even.
That's the only feature I miss after I switched from darcs to
mercurial.
Norbert
At last someone mentions mercurial.
I demand that Matthew Palmer may or may not have written...
I've given up on this thread, but I just have to say one thing:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
`Hate patch systems' can easily apply all chunks and start
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Easily. Heh. You
* Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
* John Goerzen wrote:
Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG
signatures even.
That's the only feature I miss after I switched from darcs to
mercurial.
I just realized that this feature is implemented in the patchbomb
extension, which is
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:52:09PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Matthew Palmer may or may not have written...
I've given up on this thread, but I just have to say one thing:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
`Hate patch systems' can easily apply
I demand that Matthew Palmer may or may not have written...
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:52:09PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Matthew Palmer may or may not have written...
I've given up on this thread, but I just have to say one thing:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is the root of the key difference between the `like patch
systems' people and the `hate patch systems' people.
`Hate patch systems' people are those who can read code, and prefer
programming and debuggint to doing archaelogy.
Oh brother, cut
On Friday 04 August 2006 14:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
Matthew Palmer writes (Re: Centralized darcs):
diff.gz archaeology should not be necessary.
I think this is the root of the key difference between the `like patch
systems' people and the `hate patch systems' people.
In my opinon the root
I've given up on this thread, but I just have to say one thing:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
`Hate patch systems' can easily apply all chunks and start
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Easily. Heh. You should be a comedian.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Le vendredi 04 août 2006 à 12:58 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
`Hate patch systems' people are those who can read code, and prefer
programming and debuggint to doing archaelogy. They're people like
me: my first approach to any bug I'm trying to fix (or change I'm
trying to make) is to read and
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
In my opinon the root of the key differences is that with patch systems you
can have it both ways:
a) all chunks in one big diff
b) chunks clearly separated by issue
Obviously the patch system is an addition to the VCS, so one
On Saturday 05 August 2006 18:52, Riku Voipio wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
In my opinon the root of the key differences is that with patch systems
you can have it both ways:
a) all chunks in one big diff
b) chunks clearly separated by issue
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:41:32 +0100, Jon Dowland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 1154593998 past the epoch, Eduard Bloch wrote:
And you can do all that with dpatch-edit-dpatch and the
regular Unix commands without learning another VCS and/or
without needing access to it. Advantage? Yes.
Someone is
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A few years ago, we had only CVS, which sucked. And now, we have a
gazillion of different VCSes, all different.
And most of them suck too, in their own ways.
--
,''`.
: :' :Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A few years ago, we had only CVS, which sucked. And now, we have a
gazillion of different VCSes, all different.
And most of them suck too, in their own ways.
Yup... and you just _know_ whichever one ends up winning will not be
the best by most
Matthew Palmer writes (Re: Centralized darcs):
diff.gz archaeology should not be necessary.
I think this is the root of the key difference between the `like patch
systems' people and the `hate patch systems' people.
`Hate patch systems' people are those who can read code, and prefer
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:23:43AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.03.1116 +0100]:
Debian's lists support List-ID, List-Post, and the other List- headers.
If mutt's L command doesn't use that to figure out the list reply
address, perhaps
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is the root of the key difference between the `like patch
systems' people and the `hate patch systems' people.
In my experience, the key difference between whether or not I want to use
a patch system like quilt is whether I have an upstream to
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After every upstream merger, I have to review every patch applied to
the package *anyway* to make sure that it's still sane, and I find that
easier to do by reading through the contents of debian/patches than by
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After every upstream merger, I have to review every patch applied to the
package *anyway* to make sure that it's still sane, and I find that easier
to do by reading through the contents of debian/patches than by running
filterdiff on diff.gz and then
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 04:16:30PM -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:31:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Really, I think that getting patches in darcs from people that are using
darcs send is not only easier for me as a maintainer, but also easier
On Thursday 03 August 2006 03:32, Matthew Palmer wrote:
--cut--
This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get source'
users, which are not supposed to be aware of your SCM, where your
repo is,
please, find 'SCM' in the above row, thanks.
I did. Using an SCM and
#include hallo.h
* Matthew Palmer [Thu, Aug 03 2006, 08:03:21AM]:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:36:18PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 01:01:51PM]:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
to learn how we deal with
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 04:12:50PM]:
Because everyone knows how to use cp and diff, and because I get diffs
sent to the BTS all the time. It works. And it has nothing to do with
VCS -- it's just Debian packages.
Bingo. Therefore, your efforts to use the regular
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 15:34 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Ok, third time. Please do not do that:
To: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Then SET YOUR HEADERS to reflect that, like everyone else does.
So you're shouting to people to use non-standard and not
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:31:18PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think people that are NMUing packages rarely care about this.
When NMU'ing a package, I'd really appreciate to know which changes have
which
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 03:34:34PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:09:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
Care to describe how without using your SCM but apt-get source instead ?
apt-get source packagename
Really, what is the problem here?
With a system like dpatch
Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you're shouting to people to use non-standard and not generally
implemented headers to in order to have you comply with the mailinglist
code of conduct?
Er, well the advantage of the headers is that in practice they pretty
much work most of the time
to, 2006-08-03 kello 17:56 +0900, Miles Bader kirjoitti:
Er, well the advantage of the headers is that in practice they pretty
much work most of the time (despite being non-standard and not
generally implemented they seem to work with the sort of MUA dds tend
to use), unlike the c-o-c, which
also sprach Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.03.1116 +0100]:
Debian's lists support List-ID, List-Post, and the other List- headers.
If mutt's L command doesn't use that to figure out the list reply
address, perhaps someone would be so kind as to write a suitable patch?
(That's what
to, 2006-08-03 kello 11:23 +0100, martin f krafft kirjoitti:
also sprach Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.03.1116 +0100]:
Debian's lists support List-ID, List-Post, and the other List- headers.
If mutt's L command doesn't use that to figure out the list reply
address, perhaps
On Thursday 03 August 2006 12:23, martin f krafft took the opportunity to say:
also sprach Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.03.1116 +0100]:
Debian's lists support List-ID, List-Post, and the other List- headers.
If mutt's L command doesn't use that to figure out the list reply
Lars Wirzenius:
to, 2006-08-03 kello 11:23 +0100, martin f krafft kirjoitti:
It sure works, but you have to let mutt know about it:
subscribe debian-devel@lists.debian.org
That's a *good* thing.
My point was that having to tell mutt manually about every mailing
list is a pain, and
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:09:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Nobody has to learn Darcs to hack on my packages.
Well if someone has to work on a which of the applied patch broken
the package is such a way kinda issue, he will have to, in order to
have access to the patches.
dpatch, quilt
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, as a side note on this thread: *darcs is just far t
slow* for decent maintenance of large pieces of software. I tried once
to create a mozilla repository, do some work with it and it was completely
unusable. I am not talking about minutes,
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, as a side note on this thread: *darcs is just far t
slow* for decent maintenance of large pieces of software. I tried once
to create a mozilla repository, do some work with it and it was completely
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:37:10AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 04:12:50PM]:
Because everyone knows how to use cp and diff, and because I get diffs
sent to the BTS all the time. It works. And it has nothing to do with
VCS -- it's just
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:09:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Well if someone has to work on a which of the applied patch broken
the package is such a way kinda issue, he will have to, in order to
have access to the patches.
No, they are all in the diff.gz, and that's easy enough to find.
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:13:30PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, as a side note on this thread: *darcs is just far t
slow* for decent maintenance of large pieces of software. I tried once
to
Alle Thursday 03 August 2006 13:42, Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, as a side note on this thread: *darcs is just far t
slow* for decent maintenance of large pieces of software. I tried once
to create a mozilla repository, do some work with
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 09:15:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
The very same debian patch manager clearly identifies patches you've
produced against a certain upstream version and if I want to see the text of
your diffs altering src/file.c|h|whatever, not just a mere changelog entry, I
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, as a side note on this thread: *darcs is just far t
slow* for decent maintenance of large pieces of software. I tried once
to create a mozilla repository, do
At 1154609291 past the epoch, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:
snip procmail solution
I use something similar, but I generate procmailrc and
muttrc snippets from a master file of mailing lists using m4
and some scripts.
--
Jon Dowland
http://alcopop.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:32:28AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:09:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Well if someone has to work on a which of the applied patch broken
the package is such a way kinda issue, he will have to, in order to
have access to the patches.
At 1154593998 past the epoch, Eduard Bloch wrote:
And you can do all that with dpatch-edit-dpatch and the
regular Unix commands without learning another VCS and/or
without needing access to it. Advantage? Yes.
Someone is more likely to know a particular VCS than an
in-house tool like dpatch, I
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:27:45PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
My point was that having to tell mutt manually about every mailing list
is a pain, and people don't do it.
I do.
The List- headers are sufficient, in my experience, to automate this.
They don't support following up to
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Thu, Aug 03 2006, 08:29:33AM]:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:37:10AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 04:12:50PM]:
Because everyone knows how to use cp and diff, and because I get diffs
sent to the BTS all the
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Tue, Aug 01 2006, 04:47:13PM]:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when you could use a real VC tool that does it
better?
Because you can
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 23:47, John Goerzen wrote:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when you could use a real VC tool that does it
better?
Is there a common best
Le mardi 01 août 2006 à 23:39 +0100, martin f krafft a écrit :
also sprach John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.01.2247 +0100]:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when
Hello!
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:34:41 +0200, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:06:19PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
John, are you actually using the workflow you describe for
maintenance of Debian packages? Single or team maintenance? Could
you elaborate a bit?
I do use darcs
Hello!
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:17:57 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 23:47, John Goerzen wrote:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack
to manage your patches when you could use a
also sprach Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.02.1004 +0100]:
I agree, dpatch co seem to be more accessible: they are files
you can touch; they're not an abstract concept (branch)
which you can work with, but which is not tangible.
This is another possible reason for SVN's
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:47 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when you could use a real VC tool that does it
better?
A patch system can be very
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 12:23, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:47 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when you could use a
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:41:02AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Tue, Aug 01 2006, 04:47:13PM]:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 10:17:57AM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 23:47, John Goerzen wrote:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when you could use
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:23:31AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:47 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to
manage your patches when you could
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 16:34, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:23:31AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:47 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:26PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
Actually, I disagree with that. I always hate having to work with a
package that uses a patch management system, because then I have to
learn the system before I can do any work on the package. And there are
several systems.
Hello!
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:32:13 +0200, John Goerzen wrote:
If upstream uses darcs or git, you could use their repo directly.
If they use CVS or SVN, you could use tailor to track it. If they
use Arch, you can use arch2darcs to track it.
For a tailor mini-HowTo, please give a look at [1].
Hello!
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:49:06 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
The first time I generated the darcs -upstream repository, I didn't
include the CVS folders (because anyway it's a lintian error if
^^^
they're present in
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 17:31, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:26PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
Actually, I disagree with that. I always hate having to work with a
package that uses a patch management system, because then I have to
learn the system before I can do
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
How is that not true if one knows a given patch system and does know
about your VCS and needs to work on one of your packages. Do they have
They just apt-get source, hack away, and send me a diff.
Also true for any debian
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 18:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
How is that not true if one knows a given patch system and does know
about your VCS and needs to work on one of your packages. Do they
have
They just apt-get
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
How is that not true if one knows a given patch system and does know
about your VCS and needs to work on one of your packages. Do they have
They just apt-get source, hack away, and
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the
upstrem source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), unless one knows
where to find
First, what is a Debian-specific patch? Isn't everything in diff.gz
that?
Right, but you
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the
upstrem source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), unless one knows
where to find
First, what is a Debian-specific patch? Isn't
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the
upstrem source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), unless one
knows where to
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the
upstrem source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), unless one knows
where to find
First,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
to learn how we deal with this all.
This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get source' users, which
NO. They need not care. They can just hack and send me diffs. My
debian/changelog will already document what
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:01, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
to learn how we deal with this all.
Ok, third time. Please do not do that:
To: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Sending to
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 08:27:32AM]:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:41:02AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Tue, Aug 01 2006, 04:47:13PM]:
I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't
understand the whole
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 01:01:51PM]:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
to learn how we deal with this all.
This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get source' users,
which
NO. They need not care. They can just
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:09:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:01, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
to learn how we deal with this all.
Ok, third time. Please do not do that:
To: George Danchev [EMAIL
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:36:18PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
NO. They need not care. They can just hack and send me diffs. My
debian/changelog will already document what has been going on anyway.
Heh. So they need two copies, one where they do modifications, then diff
those and send
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:31:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Really, I think that getting patches in darcs from people that are using
darcs send is not only easier for me as a maintainer, but also easier
Much easier as storing the mail attachment under debian/patches? I doubt.
Yes, indeed
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:04:53AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I agree, dpatch co seem to be more accessible: they are files you
can touch; they're not an abstract concept (branch) which you
can work with, but which is not tangible.
This is another possible reason for SVN's success:
Le mercredi 02 août 2006 à 15:34 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
Ok, third time. Please do not do that:
To: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Then SET YOUR HEADERS to reflect that, like everyone else does.
Which headers?
(If you are talking about
On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:11, Josselin Mouette took the opportunity to
say:
Le mercredi 02 août 2006 à 15:34 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
Ok, third time. Please do not do that:
To: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Then SET YOUR HEADERS to
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 17:31, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:26PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
debian/patches/ as separate file, how do I know how to update/remove/etc
There would be no
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:31:18PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think people that are NMUing packages rarely care about this.
When NMU'ing a package, I'd really appreciate to know which changes have
which purpose and which specificity. In particular
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:54:51PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 18:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
How is that not true if one knows a given patch system and does know
about your VCS and needs to work
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the
upstrem
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:36:18PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 01:01:51PM]:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
to learn how we deal with this all.
This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get
On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:45, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you lose debian
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:28:35AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:11, Josselin Mouette took the opportunity to
say:
Le mercredi 02 août 2006 à 15:34 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
Ok, third time. Please do not do that:
To: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:08:00AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:45, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG signatures
even. These can be processed in an automated way on the server,
verified against, for instance, the Debian keyring, and then applied to
the repository.
Which would also be a far
also sprach John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.01.2055 +0100]:
Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG signatures
even. These can be processed in an automated way on the server,
verified against, for instance, the Debian keyring, and then applied to
the repository.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:06:19PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
This feature is in development for bzr, called the smart server.
Just for completeness.
John, are you actually using the workflow you describe for
maintenance of Debian packages? Single or team maintenance? Could
you elaborate
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:36:07PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG signatures
even. These can be processed in an automated way on the server,
verified against, for instance, the Debian keyring, and then applied to
the repository.
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
