Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
Vincent Bernat <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to
> use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it produces a messy history when
> you are working on your patches and I often run into problems with
> .debian/.git-dpm file it maintains (import a new upstream, make some
> changes, notice that somebody else also pushed a change, pull --rebase,
> everything is broken). Since we started using it, we opened a lot of bug
> reports and not a single one of them has been fixed. I think that nobody
> wants to work on it because it is an extremely fragile tool and the
> first one to try to fix it will inherit of all the problems to solve.
It also has a number of bugs that are not getting fixed.
Plus if conflicts occur because multiple people unexpectedly make
changes at the same time it (i.e. you can't push because somebody else
already pushed changes) can be a world of confusion trying to sort out
the mess. I have had to sort out the mess when the Debian package upload
did not match my git tree because another maintainer didn't correctly
merge in my changes.
I believe there is increasing feeling that DPMT should switch away from
git dpm. I think at least one project has already done so. Just nobody
has raised the issue on the mailing list, or come up with an proposal to
> Isn't "gbp pq" a correct execution of the same principles?
No, my understanding that is git pq is something quite different, and
does not maintain the history of changes in git - except by commiting
the debian/patches/* files. It is a while since I looked at this in
"gbp pq" is probably way better then using quilt however.
Brian May <email@example.com>