hiya, On Friday 25 January 2008 09:50:56 am Andreas Tille wrote: > I would be absolutely unhappy about this. On one hand it is just a waste > of resources to clone upstream source on the other hand handling a set of > (documented!!) patches seems much more clearly for my taste. "inconvenient because of poor support in $VCS" != "just a waste of resources". In fact as i'm slowly getting involved with more and more packages using git, i'm finding it much more easy and natural to have the orig upstream in the VCS. wrt patches, i've found quilt is a really nice compromise from all sides (much more robust and manageable than dpatch, for example), though i'd be interested to hear more about the "feature branch" approach. has anyone actually implemented this with an existing package? It really stands out to me as the Right Way (in the textbook sense, anyway) to do this, but i'm not sure how practical it is to do with existing tools... i.e. how would you list the set of feature branches that need to be merged, and ensure that some other member on your team forgets to merge said feature branches before building a new version? sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.