Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
On Jan 05 2017, Brian May <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I think we heard before that git-dpm is not being maintained. I
said it, Vincent said it in his reply, and now you are saying it
again. No one is disputing the point.
> 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.
Yes, it is a mess. But I don't think it's any worse than having to
resolve conflicts in debian/patches/, which is the equivalent problem
when multiple people use gbp at the same time.
> 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 don't understand... how does a Debian package upload affect any of the
work on your git-dpm tree?
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.«