Re: Converting to dgit
On Jan 04 2017, Scott Kitterman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Curating a patch series is only 5% slower than commiting directly to
>>the Git repository to me. I just have to remember to gbp pq import
>>before making new changes, gbp pq export when I'm done, and once in a
>>great while I have to do a small bit of rebasing to merge changes back
>>into other patches. It's quite easy for someone who is very familiar
>>with Git, using good tools. That 5% would be even less if I did it
>>I'm unconvinced that any of that work would really be avoided via other
>>mechanisms. The most time-consuming part is rebasing and squashing
>>related changes together into one coherent diff, but that's going to be
>>just as hard with any of these tools since the hard work is semantic
>>requires thought, not just repository manipulation.
> And the thing that gets source delivered to users is the source
> package, not a git repository. A proper set of patches is far more
> understandable than an undifferentiated pile of diff.
The thing that's delivered to users in 99% of the cases is the binary
package. In the (comparatively) rare cases where the user is retrieving
the source, I am not convinced that most of these users truly prefer a
Debian-specific source package with patches in debian/patches over a
standard Git repository with patches as commits.
> Sometimes I feel like people lose track of the fact that the VCS is a
> means to an end and not the end target of the work we're doing.
I think it's rather that people have different views of what the desired
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.«