Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Aug 31, 2016, at 11:31 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: >isn't this what `gbp pull` is supposed to do? Indeed. Either this is new-ish or I missed it, but it does exactly what I want. Thanks! -Barry pgpvGDUnhftFZ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Friday, August 12 2016, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 12, 2016, at 05:50 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >>I understand this is a matter of personal taste, but I beg to differ. I >>have been using git-buildpackage for most of my non-Python packages and, >>despite really small nits here and

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Aug 15, 2016, at 11:44 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >If we decide to use gbp-pq, in fact, we're deciding to not decide, and anyone >can use PoQ (my choice, for example). Indeed, the way to store the patches is >PoQ, and you then "gbp-pq import", modify, then "gbp-pq export" and store the

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On 08/10/2016 10:41 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > * IOW, if > you choose to use gbp-pq, am I forced to do so when I modify the same repo? > Or if you choose to use PoQ (plain 'ol quilt), will that affect how others > can co-maintain the package in git? That's the point. If we decide to use

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Aug 12, 2016, at 05:50 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >I understand this is a matter of personal taste, but I beg to differ. I >have been using git-buildpackage for most of my non-Python packages and, >despite really small nits here and there, I think it is an awesome tool. I think there

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Wednesday, August 10 2016, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > I don't believe that switching from git-dpm to git-buildpackage is going > to make things easier, it'll just be trading one set of problems for > another. I understand this is a matter of personal taste, but I beg to differ. I have been using

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

Raphael Hertzog writes: > Anyway, +1 from me to switch to git-buildpackage and in fact among the > python-django maintainers we are close to decide to switch back to > git-buildpackage because it's really horrible to use when you want to > merge across branches of different

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 at 09:29:13 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 11, 2016, at 12:12 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > >where all Debian-specific pseudo-headers appear at the end of the diff > >(next to the Signed-off-by if any), > > Did you mean to say "end of the diff headers"? Yes, that's what I

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

Thanks for the follow up Simon. One question... On Aug 11, 2016, at 12:12 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: >gbp pq works best if all repository users stick to the dialect of DEP-3 >where all Debian-specific pseudo-headers appear at the end of the diff >(next to the Signed-off-by if any), Did you mean

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 at 16:41:40 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > * With git-dpm we *had* to enforce the tool choice because git-dpm's artifacts > had to be preserved. If we ditch git-dpm, is that still the case? IOW, if > you choose to use gbp-pq, am I forced to do so when I modify the same repo?

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > I don't believe that switching from git-dpm to git-buildpackage is going > to make things easier, it'll just be trading one set of problems for > another. I don't agree on this. I have been a happy git-buildpackage user for all my packages. The problem

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Aug 10, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >I think the only way to make this less painful is to get rid of the idea >of managing patches in a VCS and use something like gitpkg. This has the >drawback source package is now *generated* from the Git repository >(i.e., you can't do git clone

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT

On Aug 10 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote: > As I only heard complains about git-dpm, maybe someone would like to > express his joy using it, and explain why they think it's a nice tool. > But is there such person? It seems git-dpm only brings frustration. In my opinion, git-dpm

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT (was: PAPT Git)

On Aug 10, 2016, at 08:49 PM, Brian May wrote: >Most of the time it works pretty well... It looked good compared with >the alternatives available at the time we made the decision. > >However this is irrelevant IMHO if it isn't being mantained. Yep. git-dpm was the best of breed at the time we

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT (was: PAPT Git)

Thomas Goirand writes: > git-dpm also fails to tag upstream/foo automatically when importing a > new version. I've been told to use "git-dpm tag", but that's not > obvious. My own experience managing debian/patches quilt patches > manually or through gbp pq is actually much much

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT (was: PAPT Git)

On 2016-08-10 10:18, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Instead of > accepting the merge, and resolving conflicts later on, git-dpm goes into > the rebase conflict mode of Git, and it's often not obvious what to do > there. Messing-up everything, and restart from scratch (and then iterate > until done

Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT (was: PAPT Git)

On 08/10/2016 09:21 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:50 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >> On 2016-08-09 23:28, Daniel Stender wrote: >>> On this occasion ... let it be me to start the discussion: let's get into >>> Git >>> also for Python Apps soon. >> >> A