Re: Centralized darcs
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:31:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Really, I think that getting patches in darcs from people that are using
> > "darcs send" is not only easier for me as a maintainer, but also easier
>
> Much easier as storing the mail attachment under debian/patches? I doubt.
Yes, indeed it is. darcs send will send each original darcs record as a
discrete change. darcs apply can run in an interactive mode to let the
person approve (or not) each individual patch. The full commit log from
the original person also comes along automatically.
AND, there's no need to hack the Debian build infrastructure.
> > for them as contributors. Plus it is really easy for people that don't
> > grok darcs to just use normal tools to edit Debian source packages,
> > create diffs, NMU packages, or whatever -- and for me to integrate their
> > changes later. This is not the case for the other special-purpose patch
> > tools.
>
> This does not really differ from the scenarios with patch management system.
Yes it does. If I don't understand patch tool X, I have to learn how to
use patch tool X before I can even begin hacking.
Nobody has to learn Darcs to hack on my packages.
> > As I make changes, I "darcs record" them.
> >
> > I use dbp-importorig to import new upstream sources -- this is just a
> > script that untars them and uses darcs_load_dirs to import them as a
> > changeset to the upstream branch. I use "darcs pull" (the darcs merge
> > command) to pull it into my Debian tree, and that's that.
>
> Yes... and where is the big difference to other VCs except that you do
> not commit to a central repository immediately? (but you need to do it in
> an extra step in order to share the work).
I am saying in this thread that *any* VC system beats the N different
patch management tool scenario.
I do believe that Darcs has compelling advantages over other VCs, but
that is irrelevant for this point.
-- John
Reply to: