Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories

[Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>]

On 24 August 2014 04:24, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:

Right, exactly.  That's super-annoying to do if you were keeping

everything mixed together in the master branch, much easier if you were
keeping separate branches for each fix but keeping those separate branches
is itself incredibly annoying, and utterly trivial if you're using gbp pq
or git-dpm.  The latter take a little bit of getting used to, and are then
almost as fast as just making changes directly in Git, but let you
actually send isolated fixes upstream.

I would find it annoying to keep around lots of branches in the hope that one day upstream might integrate them. (One reason I also like Gerrit)

I like to minimize the number of branches I have, so I can easily keep track of what I am actually working on.

More then likely, in X years time when upstream looks at it, the branch will be gone.

Not relevant if you have a very responsive upstream

 

I would never use quilt directly.  Been there, done that, have no interest
in doing it again.  I like Git.  But using it as an export format for
patch-queue branches works really well.

What do you use instead? quilt is the only tool I know who to use here, and it is starting to irritate me - I keep making changes and forgetting to add the files to the patch first, and screwing everything up. What tool(s) should I learn to solve this?

--
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>