Re: Centralized darcs
Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:31:18PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> John Goerzen <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > I think people that are NMUing packages rarely care about this.
>> When NMU'ing a package, I'd really appreciate to know which changes have
>> which purpose and which "specificity". In particular when trying to
>> incorporate a fix provided by upstream - why the hell doesn't it apply
>> cleanly? Did the Debian maintainer already try to address the problem
> We have changelogs for that. If a maintainer doesn't fill out changelogs
> adequately, what are the chances that they're going to document their
> patches any better?
The changelog will say something like "patched component foo to no
longer fail on bar", as well as "patched component foo to support baz"
and "patched component foo, I think the code might be insecure". You
can't tell which changelog entry corresponds to which hunk in which
file. With separated patches this is much easier, even if they are
undocumented (except for the name).
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)