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

Re: Centralized darcs

Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

>> After every upstream merger, I have to review every patch applied to
>> the package *anyway* to make sure that it's still sane, and I find that
>> easier to do by reading through the contents of debian/patches than by
>> running filterdiff on diff.gz and then trying to work through the
>> intermingled results of multiple changes.

> If you were using one branch to each "logical unit patch" you might
> merge the new upstream against it and then merge all together again in a
> new release branch that you upload.

> That might looks like:

>  branches
>    upstream
>    fix-bug-N
>    fix-bug-M
>    add-feature-X
>    debian

> So every new upstream release you merge it against each fix and add
> branch. Then those against debian/. Should work well.

Yeah, that would get me some of the support for upstream merges that I
like from svk, but I'm not sure that the additional level of work is worth
it, particularly given that the structure would only be available to
people who use the repository.  I'm sure that there are revision control
systems that make the above simple and painless, but conceptually it's
complicated and sounds annoying to deal with compared to something simple
like quilt.

One of the things I really like about using quilt is that all of the
structure I use when maintaining the package is available to anyone who
wants to work on it.  The only thing you lose without access to my
repository is the revision history, not the actual tools for creating new

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: