On 08/11/2010 06:47 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Russ Allbery writes ("Notes from the DebConf Source Format BoF"):* Part of Joey's motivation is that if you look at GitHub, the people using it a lot consider Git to be a source package format,I've been doing that for some non-Debian work. It turns out to be incredibly convenient, if you're prepared to assume that your recipients have git. It becomes a software distribution format, a download tool, and a patch update tool, and makes lots of tiresome operations very easy. I've found it tenable even for naive users (of whom I know they're using Linux): the download instructions say "install git-core, and then say git-clone thingy". We should remember that our source formats and archive, together, _are_ a revision control system, and a pretty poor one at that.
hmm. I think there are three usual use of the sources: - developers/bug trackers/... - users: to check and to learn the sources - admins: who need to recompile/backport/.. sources Using git for the last two groups seems too much. Your solution will works only for master branch, but the other users will need the "stable" or testing branch. [Note: a wrapper could solve this] Should sysadmin, which recompile a package, create a new branch and commit the changes? dpkg-source will no more create a new source package? Do we really require sysadmin to learn the basic use of git? IMHO we should use both methods. One, the classical one, for users/sysadmin, and distributed in the mirrors, and the second one in a central git debian server (either with native git when available, and with imported from tar.gz+diff.gz or other CVS, in the other cases). BTW I find convenient to put the original source in git, and removing non DFSG file (but distributable, like RFC and GFDL) in the debian branches. This would cause some problem IMHO in 3.0 (git). ciao cate