Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 01:09:35PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Jan 02 2017, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> 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.)
>
> Have you tried to use git-debcherry in those situations? I have tried it
> in some simpler cases and worked very well, but I'd be curious if anyone
> has tried it on larger and more complex repositories.
I've found git-debcherry to work well when cherry-picking patches _from_
upstream or upstream is receptive to merging patches. If patches live
in the Debian package for quite some time (either intentionally as
Debian-specific changes or because it takes time to get upstream) then
you lose IMO relevant metadata in the debcherry-exported patches.
I ended up switching to gbp pq for the one package where I have
long-lived patches.
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7 2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB
Reply to: