Re: dgit and upstream git repos

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: dgit and upstream git repos"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > On `source code': I think everyone should have the same definition of
> > `source code' for git as for tarballs.
> 
> I understand why you feel this way, particularly given the tools that
> you're working on, but this is not something I'm going to change as
> upstream.  [...]
> 
> I say this not to pick a fight, since it's totally okay with me that you
> feel differently, but to be clear that, regardless of preferences, the
> reality that we'll have to deal with is that upstreams are not going to
> follow this principle.  I know I'm not alone in putting my foot down on
> this point.

I hope you understand the rest of my mail, in which I said or implied:

1. Even if upstream disagrees, it should be obviously why dgit needs
   the dgit git history to have identical contents to the Debian
   packages.

2. This dgit requirement is not difficult to work with (in part
   because git makes it easy to do stunts).

3. In particular the dgit git history can still have the upstream git
   history as an ancestor, take cherry picks and even merges from
   upstream git, etc.

(There is a problem with dgit and .pc/ which I am hoping to fix with a
(perhaps-incompatible) change RSN, but that's not related.)

Ian.