[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tarballs - why in SVN?


* 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

> 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,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: