Re: Centralized darcs
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:37:10AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 04:12:50PM]:
>
> > Because everyone knows how to use cp and diff, and because I get diffs
> > sent to the BTS all the time. It works. And it has nothing to do with
> > VCS -- it's just Debian packages.
>
> Bingo. Therefore, your efforts to use the regular process as an argument
> supporting darcs' patch management are pointless.
What? Are you trying to just be a troll here?
I am saying that:
* For the MAINTAINER, a single diff.gz is often not the most
convenient.
* I believe that ANY VCS is a better solution to this than ANY
custom patch solution.
* No matter which VCS you use, third parties (NMUers, etc)
don't have to learn it -- they can use standard Debian tools.
* No matter which custom patching solution you use, third parties
DO have to learn it before they can start hacking on your code.
* Darcs has certain advantages over other VCS.
If *I* use Darcs instead of a patching tool, then if Joe Random Hacker
wants to NMU my package, *HE* doesn't have to learn a thing. Plus I get
all the benefits of patch management and history with more features than
any patching tool.
If *I* use Darcs, then EVERYONE ELSE can use the regular process.
If *I* use a patching tool, then EVERYONE ELSE IS FORCED TO ALSO.
Clear now?
> > > And if the user has more than one patch which needs to be maintained
> > > separately, is it still is still trivial FOR HIM? (or her)
> >
> > Who is the user?
>
> A system admin adding 3-5 extra patches to his local package
> installation?
How does this bolster your case? The local sysadmin has the potential
to need to learn 3-5 patching tools in this case.
Reply to: