Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Fri, 16 May 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > > Coming up with a complex set of requirements that everyone has to follow > > up front in their workflow[1] is not going to yeld the best results, and > > I think that's my core reason for disliking Raphael's proposal. Now, if > > you can come up with protocols/interfaces that can be used to > > publish/communicate patches, that are managed/generated in whatever way > > is most useful for the maintainer, that seems more likely to work. > > Aren't "patch files in debian/patches/ with some headers" a defined interface? It's an interface, that if you stop there in defining it, means that I have to check debian/patches/ into revision control, and bloat my .diff.gz or .git.tar.gz (depending on whether I'm using v1 or v3 source) with them. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature