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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

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".

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: