Bug#1007717: attempt to summarize current state of this bug
Hi,
On 10/05/22 at 16:57 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> 1.0-with-diff has advantages over 3.0 (quilt) particularly with git-based
> workflows, because in 3.0 (quilt) the diff is included inside the source
> tree
> The issue of preferred form for modification has been raised (source package
> in general, quilt stack, or VCS repo); Sam states that there is consensus
> both that git workflows are best practice (especially where upstream uses
> git), and that natives packages are sometimes an appropriate tool to use.
> There is a wide range of git workflows, which the occasional NMUer can avoid
> caring about by use of dgit(7).
I think that the two above paragraphs mix two different categories of
workflows:
- git-first workflows: packaging workflows that use git as the preferred
form for modification, and use the source package format as an opaque
output format
- git-using workflows: packaging workflows that use git for
collaboration and tracability, but aim at producing a source package
that is useful on its own (typically with a clean patch serie)
With this distinction made, I think that:
> 1.0-with-diff has advantages over 3.0 (quilt) particularly with git-based
> workflows, because in 3.0 (quilt) the diff is included inside the source
> tree
=> this really only applies to git-first workflows
> Sam states that there is consensus
> both that git workflows are best practice (especially where upstream uses
> git)
I think that:
- There is consensus that using a VCS, and Git in particular, for packaging
is a best practice
- git-using workflows are a best practice (based on their usage by the
vast majority of packages)
But I challenge that there is a consensus that git-first workflows are a
best practice. I think that they are a practice that is worth exploring
and experimenting on, but not yet widely adopted nor understood. But I
would be happy to be proven wrong (especially of based on facts).
Lucas
Reply to: