[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines

At Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:00:50 +0200,
Guido Günther wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 07:24:20PM +0100, James Westby wrote:
> > Guido Günther wrote:
> > > Which isn't a problem on patch-queue branches since you either can
> > > recreate them anytime from what's in debian/patches or simply ammend the
> > > commit. They're supposed to be rebased frequently anyway.
> > That's not true in my opinion. It would tend to be hostile to people who
> > would like to collaborate on the patches wouldn't it?
> Isn't this a question on how you lay out your workflow? The patch-queue
> branches are basically a tool that eases managing patches that end up in
> debian/patches while retaining the merge capabilities of git (e.g. when
> forwarding to new upstream versions, etc.) so there's not even a need to
> push them into remote repos - you do have all the information on master
> to recreate the patch-queue branch at any time.

At least with topgit, patch branches are meant to be pushed and
pulled, and use merge rather than rebase for just this reason.  This
makes the history ugly, but does facilitate the kind of collaboration
James alluded to. I lost track of what the global point of this
subthread was, but I did think a bit about DEP-3 and topgit, and it
seems not particularly problematic since there is some header file
.topmsg that already contains subject/signed-off-by headers, and is
inserted into the exported patches.  I guess it should be not hard to
to add more headers.


Reply to: