Re: No native packages?
Roger Leigh <email@example.com> writes:
> Maybe I forgot the answer, but at least in terms of git and the dpkg 3.0
> (git) format, why can't we simply make use of shallow cloning? We only
> distribute a single revision, the one we're building, and if the history
> is polluted for whatever reason, it has no impact--we're only providing
> the equivalent of a tarball. The difference being, there's nothing
> preventing anyone receiving the package from adding the appropriate
> remotes and restoring the full history (at their choice), so it retains
> its utility. From the POV of review, it's then no different to a plain
> tarball. But from the POV of a developer, I can fetch the history, add
> remotes, commit changes, push to somewhere and open pull requests, etc..
My impression of the previous discussion is that the perceived benefits of
shallow clones weren't enough to do the work if all we were going to use
was just the minimal shallow clone, since at that point there seemed to be
little to gain for the user over using debcheckout, but the ftp team still
has to enforce the restrictions on shallow clones, deal with source
packages with more revisions than expected, etc.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>