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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"):
> On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+0000], Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Looked at another way, it is trying to be a version control system,
> > layered on top of the Debian archive.  But it is only about a quarter
> > of a VCS.  There are no formal interfaces to do proper VCS operations.
> > If there is a formal interface, it is quilt(1) (which is itself very
> > poor.  NB that is not quilt's fault: quilt inevitably has a hard job
> > because can't make enough assumptions).
> there quilt push, pop and header which seems enough.

Well, it seems you don't really think so :-), because:

> I usually have git-dpm which creates the quilt series and I try to
> keep patches documented.

So you are using git operations to manipulate your patch stack.
git-dpm is one of the tools we have which lets you do that.

> > I think if we want to be storing patch queues we should be doing so in
> > a real version control system.  Indeed, most people are doing that.
> > For now many people are using `3.0 (quilt)' as an interchange format,
> > but ideally we would switch to a useable git workflow that did a
> > similar thing, and then we could use git as our history interchange
> > format.
> I read this a few times in this thread that people want the patches in a
> VCS. I never saw this a missing feature or requirement on my side.
> I can't think of an example where having a patch history somewhere else
> than within the patch itself is useful. My thinking is probably limited
> by my workflow :) Would you have an example where and how this could be
> usefull?

You have misunderstood, I think.  I don't mean (and I think most
other people don't mean) that they want the history _of_ a patch.
That is, we aren't saying we want to look at the output of
`git blame debian/patches/01-sponge.patch'.

Rather, we think manipulating a stack of patches is much easier if one
converts the patches to a git branch, with each patch becoming a
commit (using a tool morally equivalent to git-am, such as gbp pq

Naturally that doesn't end up recording a history _of_ the patches,
because the patches _become_ `the history'.  Then one manipulates the
patches with git-rebase (or similar tools), git-commit,
git-cherry-pick, etc.

Finally, when doing an upload, one converts the git branch back into
patches (with a tool morally equivalent to git-format-patch).

I think only a minority of people are actually using quilt on


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: