FTR, I answered most questions about "why not dgit?" in the thread I
just moved to vcs-pkg-discuss only[1].

For some specific questions here:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:31:31AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> dgit can work on Ubuntu too, in a readonly mode.  (It would be nice to
> make `dgit push' work on Ubuntu but that requires a suitable git
> server, and some configration on the dgit client side.)

A key difference with our system is that no infrastructure is required.
It's distributed (-able), with no special git remote.

> The --skip-patches is a vital difference.
> Has the decision to use --skip-patches been definitively taken ?

For now, to fulfill our use case, yes. In the general case, no, not at
all. Probably the best place to enter into this would be in a reply to
my fuller explanation of the reasons in [1].

> I would like to beg you to reconsider this, in the strongest possible
> terms.  --skip-patches generates a patches-unapplied tree.
> A patches-unapplied tree:

Sorry, I missed reference to this list when I wrote [1]. I'll study
these and consider how they related to my reasons later.

> If you are making patches-unapplied trees I think you cannot possibly
> be representing the quilt patch stack of a `3.0 (quilt)' source
> package as a series of git commits.

Correct. This has not been our goal.

> Representing a `3.0 (quilt)' package that way is desirable, as it
> means that `git blame' and `git log' can be used to see which patches
> do what.

In contrast, in our Ubuntu development workflow, what you mention is not
a requirement, but what is a requirement is to use "git blame" and "git
log" to see when the quilt patches applied were altered. We don't want
to drill down as far as you are suggesting; instead, we want the
information at one level removed.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to