Re: Notes from the DebConf Source Format BoF
Giacomo A. Catenazzi writes ("Re: Notes from the DebConf Source Format BoF"):
> 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.
I've found that it works reasonably well, provided that: For users,
you assume that they know nothing about git and you just tell them
runes to type. And for admins, that they are willing to learn git or
already know it. For admins who don't want to learn git you do need
something else.
> 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]
This is easy: you just publish two trees, rather than two branches in
the same tree. (It's a shame that there isn't a syntax for "git
clone" which checks out a particular branch.)
> Should sysadmin, which recompile a package, create
> a new branch and commit the changes?
If you're doing things that way, yes.
> dpkg-source will no more create a new source package?
> Do we really require sysadmin to learn the basic use of git?
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm certainly not saying we
should abandon everything we have and try to make everyone use git.
I'm trying help give motivation to ideas for improving the current
situation, and also give an idea of how some things can work very well
with modern tools.
Ian.
Reply to: