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

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

 * 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: