Re: How to cope with patches sanely --> Debian New Maintainers' Guide

[Patrick Schoenfeld <schoenfeld@in-medias-res.com>]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:14AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> This seems to be much cleaner than dpatch or quilt.  Also with the help
> of gitk, history is much more visible.  I look forward to see it matured
> and accepted.

personally I am a fan of the diversity in the Debian project. Its really
fine, that developers are not forced to work with certain software
(besides the minimal common standardisation that is needed), while I
don't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to. However I also agree
that in some levels diversity is way too much.
The way patches to the upstream source is handled is one of these
points where the diversity is way to much, as I and obviously a lot of
other people think as well.

So, yes, there should be a common agreement of how we handle patches and
I am a fan of version control systems (for a number of reasons), but I
would not agree that forcing all developers to use git is a good idea.
Personally I would think that it makes more sense to keep version
control and patch management seperated. There could be a common
agreement on a patch system and that would be really fine. I'm using
dpatch so far, but it has its weakness, so I don't see a reason why I
shouldn't go with another patch system.

So, I would agree with those recommending quilt, if it has significant
pros besides dpatch. That would be forcing to a specific tool and so
giving up some diversity, but it would keep giving up freedom of choice
on a low level, while forcing everybody to a specific VCS wouldn't keep
it low.

Best Regards,
Patrick