Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes:
> 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.
Yeah, exactly. That's the thing that ended up annoying me about the
feature branch approach. gbp pq handles that in a fairly nice way and
lets you not have to deal with multiple branches, and git-dpm I believe
does as well (although I've not personally used it).
> 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?
git-buildpackage's gbp pq system is what I use. I believe git-dpm is more
complicated and comprehensive, but gbp pq is simple enough in its
operations that it doesn't take long to wrap your mind around it.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: