On Jan 03 2017, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:
> 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
[...]
This should of course have been "...merge conflict when merging in a new
upstream version".
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
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