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

Re: Converting to dgit


On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 04:33:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery 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 more often.

Development of most software involves diverging branches of development
that have to be merged into each other at various points and for various
reasons.  To my mind, Debian's patching of upstream source is just
another kind of branching, parts of which will hopefully be merged back,
and parts of which never will be.

Most git-using upstreams handle this divergence and merging with
standard git tools.  Using workflows like dgit-maint-merge(7), we can
handle our Debian divergence and merging in just the same way.  You can
use gbp-pq to curate a series of patches.  But then we're singling out
the Debian branch as somehow special and inconvenient.  We wouldn't
suggest an upstream developer working on a feature branch use gbp-pq...

I'm grateful that you've noted in this discussion that you find `gbp pq
import` and `gbp pq export` not to be burdensome.  However, while I
haven't had nearly as much experience as you, I have to add that I find
gbp-pq to be a complete pain.  I just want to switch to a new git
branch, iterate on my problem with as much committing as I need, and
then merge back (possibly with --squash).  This takes up so much fewer
of my brain cycles.

(this is not to say that gbp-pq isn't a cool piece of software -- dgit
uses it internally, for one thing)

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 06:50:53PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:36:22AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> >> I still haven't really made up my mind if I want to use git-maint-merge
> >> or git-dpm. Russ recently raised a valid point with the Debian
> >> modifications over-time becoming all tangled up and impossible to
> >> separate.
> >
> > I also read Russ's e-mail, but I'm not yet convinced that powerful tools
> > like `git diff` and `git log` won't be able to give you the information
> > you need pretty quickly.
> Can you give an example? Eg if I have to Debian patched that both
> produced merge conflicts at some point, how do I disentangle them into
> two separate patches with just git log and git diff?

Use the `git log` command I gave previously, and cherry-pick the commits
you want.  Thanks to the merges, they won't apply cleanly, and you'll
have to manually resolve the cherry-picks.  However, as evidenced by
Russ's examples, manual resolution will always be required in these
sorts of cases, and git minimises the amount of it you have to do.

> > It might take a little time to craft the right command, but that is
> > easily outweighed by the time saved curating a patch series.
> Well - that is obviously very much dependent on the git-fu of the person
> doing the work.

Yes, fair enough, this is moderately advanced git-fu.

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:36:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That said, gbp pq does something else I really like, namely it exports in
> the source package all of the metadata that anyone else would need to pick
> up the package without needing a copy of my Git repository (except for
> history).

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:52:44AM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

The official dgit-repos fixes both these issues.

`dgit clone foo jessie,-security` is at least a good a way of delivering
source to users as `apt-get source`.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: