On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 02:34:26PM -0800, Diane Trout wrote:
> What's the debian-med team's position on whether or not to include the
> upstream history as described in:
I don't think there is a "team's position" on it, except that it's not
usual at all.
Personally, I find it more confusing then anything else, in all the
packages where this schema is used.
> There's supposedly some advantages for handling patches but I
> haven't figure out how to do that yet.
It's easier to pick and remove patches when using `gbp pq`. I.e.,
assuming a package with currently zero patches you could:
gbp pq switch
git cherry-pick <upstream hash of the commit you want>
gbp pq export
and you are set, without having to pull a patch file from somewhere
else, or having to have an extra remote that it not checked out anywhere
just to do that job.
Also `gbp pq rebase` tends to work better.
> I have some prototype packaging I've done using that method for anndata
> and scanpy, but I could easily generate a fresh history using gbp
> import-dsc.
I can't tell you what to do here, I'll let othre comment :)
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature