[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:
> Hello Russ,
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:29:24AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches,
>> which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if someone was
>> packaging in Git and just randomly commits things directly to the
>> packaging branch intermixed with merges from upstream.  A few releases
>> done that way will leave you almost completely unable to extract a rebased
>> patch set against the current upstream source.  (I have made this mistake
>> so many times with my own packages.)
> Aside from `git debcherry`, which was already mentioned, git itself can
> get you this information.  For example:
>     git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian'
> This will get you all commits which touched the upstream source that
> have not been merged upstream.  There can be as many merge commits as
> you like in between.

Yes, but that's not as useful as what git-debcherry produces.

For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above
incantation will list two commits: the original debian commit and the
merge commit. git-debcherry, on the other hand, will synthesize one
patch, consisting of the original Debian commit, but modified to include
the *relevant parts* of the merge commit.


GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: