On Wednesday 01 October 2008 15:13:45 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> > 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 does not support submodules.
> >
> > It's also overkill and a bad idea due to its complexity, as Martin
> > said. Dig through the threads linked from http://vcs-pkg.org to find
> > all the other arguments against it, especially by Pierre, who
> > probably knows more Git than you and I together.
> >
> > If I were asked about which source package format will become
> > standard in Debian for squeeze or squeeze+1, I'd have to say v3
> > quilt, for *sure*. The git/bzr were nice ideas but are never going
> > to make it, IMHO.
>         *Shrug*. If the 3.0 (git) format is untenable, then I suppose
>  I'll just let dpkg muddle through. I am not _that_ interested in making
>  it easier for vaporware helpers to possibly contribute that I'll be
>  willing to take a huge hit on my productivity.

I guess you are still missing the point and at the end your production might 
be useless to your users/reviewers/contributors, no matter how productive 
*you* have been.

>         The bottom line still remains making it easier for me to package
>  software for my distribution cleanly, efficiently, and without
>  having to jump through too many hoops.

It is much more efficient to invest some efforts at your side and make 
divergencies from upstream clearly identified, than everybody else to spend 
time on his own to investigate your divergencies from upstream and doing that 
*your way*.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to