Re: Let's talk about SVN management
Hi Arno,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 01:43, Arno Töll <debian@toell.net> wrote:
> On 07.11.2011 07:12, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> I would prefer switching to git, too. Therefore we should not put work
>> into restructuring the svn repo, IMHO.
>
> Sandro, do you have any plans in restructuring the repository? I am
> undecided whether I shall wait for you working on that before starting
> (finishing) to work on the stuff I announced to work on.
>
> It's not a big deal to provide my self-made patches, but it would be
> annoying if you would come up with a brand new repository a few days later.
Nope, no restructured repository, unless we reach a consensus on the
VCS we're going to use. I replied to Stefan email about svn/git so I
do think that we need first to iron out where we want to go :)
>> But I don't have any experience
>> in maintaining a large complicated package in git, though. Do you? Is it
>> necessary to import the complete upstream source with git? Though it may
>> actually be a good idea, because we frequently have to backport commits
>> from upstream's 2.2.x branch.
>
> It is not needed, but of course, it is perfectly possible. There are
> (too?) many workflows in git.
yeah, it's like the perl of VCSes :)
> Basically you can either track upstream's
> VCS in a remote branch in git, or put orig.tar.gz tarballs in the
> pristine-tar repository or not use any upstream source at all, or use
> any combination of these.
>
> That said, I am no git expert either, but I have some experience with
> git|svn-buildpackage.
>
>> If that's sorted
>> out, I would prefer 3.0, too.
>
> I will think about solutions for that problem soon(tm).
I suggested a debian/rules addition to remove the
patch-that-are-actually-scripts - what do you think about it?
Cheers,
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: