also sprach David Nusinow <email@example.com> [2008.01.27.0334 +1100]: > External patch systems are not ideal by any means, but they do > clearly address these issues as well as I could ask for. It's > trivial to update the patches, just go one by one through them. > You can trivially see the patch in full, which makes it quite easy > to deal with. Patches, once ready, can be easily sent upstream for > later inclusion. Patches can be commented in their headers, which > allows an easy single place to collect information rather than > having to scour through your history. I really don't see how this is in any way different from feature branches. Sure, having 30-or-so feature branches around may make you dizzy at first, but most of them you won't have to touch, and if you do, then what you get is pretty cool: - merge support, in case the base branch ('master' or 'upstream' or 'debianisation') has changed. Unless there have been incompatible changes, the VCS can "update" your patch trivially easy, and better than any of the patch systems I've seen. - patch/feature-branch-specific history. Say feature branch 'foo' has a bug, so you check it out and work on it again... now you're suddenly in the context of all the work you've previously done and you can trivially browse the history of changes applicable only to what you're currently working on. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems it's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry.
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)