On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:47:21PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> I believe, that one diff is much more better than many diffs.
> This only works, if the diff's are independend or one diff is diff are on
> the top of each other. So I do not see the advantage of many diffs.
The advantage of having multiple diffs is that distinct changes can be
kept distinct. You do need a system for ensuring that the diffs are
applied in the correct order and so on, but given that multiple diffs
are very much nicer. It becomes very much more obvious what has been
changed and how, not to mention far simpler to adjust the set of changes
that have been applied. As an added bonus, the handling of upstream
source that include patches is more elegant.
It's just the implementation that sucks: the idea of having multiple
diffs is good.
> If it is to have some diff included that should be updated I would prefer
> to create an local cvs-repro, put the orig in it, tag it, patch it with
> the debian diff, make an branch, patch the branch, and merge everything
> together and produce an new diff and remove the local cvs-repro.
Aside from requiring CVS this looses information for anyone without
access to the repository. That's a hassle when you get maintainer
changes and makes the packaghe source itself much less useful than it
could be.
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Attachment:
pgpjfWobpZsw0.pgp
Description: PGP signature