On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these > > branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the > > upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information > > about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in > > turn compress well in the git repository. > Oh. No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong, since any user of > git-buildpackge will have the second. Rather, what's normally missing > from most Git-based packaging is the *first* branch, since the > git-buildpackage workflow was designed originally around importing > upstream tarballs to create the second branch. Ok. Well, bear in mind that this is all second-hand. I was complaining on IRC about having to work with the designated Vcs-Git branch on a package (I don't remember which) that didn't use pristine-tar, and multiple developers rallied to the defense of this practice, claiming that pristine-tar caused git repositories to rapidly balloon in size. Perhaps one of them can speak for themselves about what they think the issues are. :) On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:09:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Oh, wait, no, I see what you're saying: one version in the pristine-tar > xdelta and one version in the packaging branch. Yes, in that case, you'd > probably store it twice, since Git isn't going to be able to figure out > what's going on in that xdelta. But that would require using pristine-tar > with a branch that isn't an actual upstream branch in the git-buildpackage > sense, which pretty much requires not using git-buildpackage (or at least > using a very strange set of options). While certainly nothing requires > one to use git-buildpackage with a Git-based workflow, I suspect it's the > most common approach. So my own experience is that almost none of the Debian packages maintained in git that I try to touch appear to use git-buildpackage in anything resembling a sensible manner. The XSF packages aren't set up for git-buildpackage (which is reasonable since their git usage predates git-bp and it's a comparatively large team with established practices), and random other packages I've looked at have also shunned git-bp conventions. Compared to the simple consistency of Ubuntu UDD branches, I find this maddening. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:02:59PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > Actually most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the *first* of these > branches. They usually have an upstream branch which is synthesized > solely from importing tarballs using git import-orig. In other words, the > typical practice is to avoid sharing git history with the upstream VCS, > which in turn works out very well for git-dch, because you don't get > unnecessary upstream changes documented in debian/changelog. This seems utterly broken to me and optimized for the wrong priority. I cannot imagine why anyone would endure git's user interface and then not even use the DVCS functionality for collaboration with upstream. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature