Hi! * Miriam Ruiz <little_miry@yahoo.es> [060814 16:40]: [ full upstream source in svn ] > > May I ask why? We rarely change anything of upstream, and even then the > > consesus seems to be to use some kind of patch management system. So > > why do we put the full source under version control? > Is that the consensus? Till today I thought so, > >From the mails at the beginning of the group I got the impression that using a > versioning system made it unneccesary to use dpatch or similar, as diffs of > the stored files could be obtained easily from SVN. But that's not all. If upstream releases a new version, I want to have small chunks to test; if someone wants to sponsor a package, I want to see and know what has been changed by you. Having small, seperate patches makes that a lot easier, than digging arround in svn. > In fact, dpatch makes the code quite confusing when you're analizing it. Please? It adds one patch rule, one unpatch rule, and respective depends for the clean and build rules. I don't think that's rocket science. > What's the general idea about using a patch management system? Is it good or > evil? It's a good thing, and beside what I alread said, and what Linas said, makes the live for other people easier. Sometimes people not familiar with the package need to touch it (e.g. the security team, a sponsor, an NMUer). You make their live a lot easier, if they can just add their patch to your patch management system. Yours sincerely, Alexander
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature