On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:05:38PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > How exciting. So the official tarball of GNU hello is not the > preferred form for modification! ironically I could say "welcome to 2016"… ;) > Personally I think a Linux kernel tarball, without accompanying git > history, is a GPL violation. But I don't expect to convince anyone... at least you got your expectations right ;) to finally reply seriously: I think the sources themselves are still the preferred form of modification, the git history is "just" another tool to help one better understand the source, but it's absolutly not needed to modify the source. This is comparable with eg. some configuration files for an editor, which helps one to edit the source more easily, but which in no way are needed to provide patches in the prefered form of modifications. And even if the prefered form for supplying a modification is a git patch, thats easy to do with tarballs and git init… -- cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature