Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I think/hope I explained the why in the blog post.
> I like to use the awesome power of a modern version control system, be
> it svn or git, to manage my patches. They're both pretty good, and tools
> like svn-upgrade make it easy to merge my changes forward to a new
> upstream release. svn is less good than git at handling things like
> feature or bugfix branches. If I have a lot of branches, I'm happier
> working with git these days. I've never found myself in that position
> with a CPAN package though. CPAN packages tend to need very few
Just adding a perspective, not trying to convince you particularly:
I still find it really important to be able to separate out individual
changes to feed upstream when working with a CPAN package. With quilt, I
can do that. With git, I can do that, but the team isn't using git and
doesn't have a git respository (and has a bunch of tools that need to know
about the repository). With Subversion, I can't do that, so just making
the modifications directly in Subversion looks really unappealing. It
adds to the upstream coordination work and makes it harder to cope with
new versions for me.
Having used arch switch more now, and knowing that git's implementation of
the same is way better, I'd be happy to generally switch to git. Short of
using git, though, I still want to use quilt when I have upstream changes.
Using just Subversion feels like going back to the dark ages of CVS.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
- From: gregor herrmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: Tools
- From: Joey Hess <email@example.com>