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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems


On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:39:33AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> >
> >     git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian'
> 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.

That's a good point.  In this context, `git debcherry` is a tool to
filter and neaten a git history.  However, it inserts another step
between upstream, and powerful tools like git-cherry-pick and
git-bisect.  Upstream now has to know that Debian has orig.tars and
various ways of representing changes to them.

If I were a busy upstream, I would much rather `git fetch` my Debian
maintainer's branches, and then immediately set to work cherry-picking
and bisecting.  I don't need any Debian-specific knowledge, except that
which is relevant to the bug I'm trying to fix -- I don't need to know
what an orig.tar is.  This is worth having to look at a few merge

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:54:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, if we had one more thing: a patches.debian.org service that would
> show the git-debcherry-extracted patches against upstream.  I really like
> being able to just point upstream at all the patches relevant to them that
> Debian has applied.

That would be great.  Then the git-debcherry series would be available
for those that want it, without requiring package maintainers to do any
curation at all.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: