On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:23:10PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach James Vega <jamessan@debian.org> [2008.02.21.0020 +0100]: > > The difference here being that feature branches are, in my experience, > > changes against the pristine upstream source. The merging of different > > feature branches is done in some integration branch. Quilt patches are > > a dependent series where the merging of changes is inherent in the patch > > ordering. Thus it's easier to get an "upstream ready" patch from $vcs > > than from a series of interdependent patches. > > ... unless feature branches interdepend and you have to store > dependency information somewhere. Each feature is still a separate candidate for inclusion upstream. If you have features A and B, which touch similar files and are therefore interdependent *in your tree*, the patches sent upstream still need to be a diff against their vanilla upstream source. Either you maintain the patches purely against vanilla upstream initially and perform your own merging when you prepare the Debian package or you maintain dependent patches and rediff against upstream's vanilla source before sending the patch their way. Whether using $vcs or $patch_manager, there is going to be some manual work to a) get a patch that is purely against vanilla upstream and/or b) rediff B when A is accepted upstream. You're just changing when you do the work. James -- GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature