Steve Langasek <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:09:39PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> I find the interfaces to the UDD tools very confusing. Here's but one >> example (yes, I filed a bug, no I don't recall the number): >> >> The basic dpkg-buildpackage command to build a source package that >will >> include the upstream tarball in the upload is: >> >> dpkg-buildpackage -S -sa >> >> For the non-UDD dpkg-buildpackage wrapper debuild, one attaches >> dpkg-buildpackage options on the end and they are passed to >> dpkg-buildpackage: >> >> debuild -S -sa >> >> bzr-builddeb has this interface: >> >> bzr-builddeb -S -- -sa > >'bzr bd -- -S -sa' works equally well, and could be the usage >recommended in >the documentation for consistency. > >> The biggest benefit of UDD, IMO is that each upload is imported into >a VCS >> so we have per upload history. That happens no matter how the >package is >> built or uploaded. All the additional complexity of committing to >the VCS >> and getting that merged has very minimal benefits for the average >> developer. > >One concrete example where UDD shines and the non-UDD workflow is >inadequate >is for sponsoring of package merges. If someone hands me a branch that >properly merges the new Debian version into the Ubuntu branch, I can >review >that with the standard bzr diff tools and ascertain that the sponsoree >has >done the merge correctly. If someone hands me a debdiff for a Debian >merge, >that's useless; I effectively have to do the merge myself as part of >the >review, and no time is saved.
It only works better if you are using UDD. I agree that if your primary workflow is UDD based, then UDD branches are better. If I get a branch it's as useless for me as a debdiff is for you. When asked to sponsor things that have a branch, I generally decline or ask for a debdiff. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
