Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@golden-gryphon.com>]

On 08/26/2014 10:53 PM, Brian May wrote:
> On 26 August 2014 16:12, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@golden-gryphon.com>
> wrote:
>
> > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Serializing_Git_Branches.pdf has a
> > demonstration of the differences in history given an upstream and two
> > feature branches with two commits each, using git-dpm and git-debcherry.
>
> Interesting review.
>
> However, I think there might be some errors.
>
> I don't think you should use normally be feature branches with git-dpm.
> Rather you edit the commit directly (whether by rebase or --amend).

	As I have commented elsewhere in this thread, that restriction makes 
git-dpm a less viable alternative for complex packages.

> Also I think there is an error in the way you have done the git-dpm, e.g.
> when committing B21, you have added to the existing B12 patch instead of
> replacing it. Similarly when adding A31, you haven't replaced A11.
	That is really a matter of displaying history. The diagram displays Git 
history, not the patches; when B21 is committed, there is no patch 
representing B12, however, that commit is still in <top>/.git/objects 
since it is a parent of the Node D3. This is relevant when I am trying 
to trying to bisect and understand history. git-debcherry has fewer 
commits being carried around, which makes it easier on my aging brain.

   Manoj