On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:27:13PM +0200, Martin Bähr wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 02:27:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Not really. I prefer to have the source packages be unpackged
even on a machine which does not run Debian, using just plain old tar
and patch. Thus I tend
also sprach Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.01.0302 +0200]:
Only if you like working with patch series, and prefer to lose
all the information that the original VCS contained. I prefer to see
the whole history, not just a snapshot, when I am joining a development
effort.
also sprach Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.01.0302 +0200]:
This is a strawman, really. The options are not the giant big
diff vs quilt (equally horrible, IMHO). The options are 3.0 (quilt) vs
3.0 (git). I would have gone for the 3.0 (git) format myself, except
that it
On Wed, Oct 01 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
Assuming we have a number of feature branches, we may well have to
resolve conflicts among them, so an integration branch seems like
the right way forward. So unless we just build the package from the
integration branch to produce a monolithic
Quoting Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Oct 01 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
Assuming we have a number of feature branches, we may well have to
resolve conflicts among them, so an integration branch seems like
the right way forward. So unless we just build the package from the
On Wed, Oct 01 2008, George Danchev wrote:
Quoting Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Oct 01 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
Assuming we have a number of feature branches, we may well have to
resolve conflicts among them, so an integration branch seems like
the right way forward. So
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081001 20:46]:
This might be you, but not the rest of the world. Also, people are
hardly trying to develop large and nifty features in their
debian/patches/ seriously. These are for tracking divergencies, not
accepted upstream X.Y for any reason.
