Re: Status of dgit (good for NMUs and fast-forwarding Debian branches)
Adam Borowski <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:31:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think Adam's point is that there's a one-to-one correspondance
>> between a 3.0 (quilt) package and a 3.0 (git) package that consists
>> solely of an import of the most recent upstream source plus one commit
>> per patch.
> You can trim the history at any commits you want.
Trimming the history of commits doesn't help. In order to have something
that's equivalent from a license review standpoint, you have to rebase all
of the commits into something akin to the quilt presentation, which means
merging commits that make a single change in multiple chunks, collapsing
history, and so forth. Otherwise, all the intermediate commits have to be
double-checked for licensing, which is exactly the concern.
> Why? You get a working repository that's hash-compatible with upstream.
> It has anything you need for forward work.
You don't because you have to rebase to get the commit count down to a
managable review load, as mentioned above.
> A good majority of free software projects use git, so requiring
> knowledge of git is not a big downside. Not so with something as
> obscure as quilt...
The difference is that you don't need to know anything at all about quilt
to pull the patches out of the package, and patches are a much more
widely-used format than Git.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>