Hi, On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:11 -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue February 26 2008 6:55:53 am Ondrej Certik wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Edward Allcutt <ema29@srcf.ucam.org> > wrote: > > > > > > So that would make hg the only VCS package maintained in a VCS inferior > > > to itself? :P > > > > That's because hg-buildpackage is not really used much in Debian and > > also it seems noone is interested in it much, see also this bug or > > rather a wish: > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=448444 > > > > that I reported 4 months ago with no response at all. > > It is a valid point that you can reconstruct the upstream branch just from > the tags. But Mercurial in-tree branches are not at all the same as Git > in-tree branches, and don't really lend themselves to this sort of > development process as easily. In Mercurial, you are really encouraged to > have the separate branches as separate dirs on disk. I think there are a > few things that hg-buildpackage does which git-buildpackage doesn't yet, but > nothing significant. > > I simply hadn't had the chance to think about that deeply yet. > > But I am now in the process of moving my Debian packaging work from Mercurial > to Debian. If you, or someone else, would like to take over > hg-buildpackage, please contact me. > Taking over hg-buildpackage seems interesting to me. William
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part