Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Jan 05 2017, Brian May <bam@debian.org> wrote:
> > Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.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.
When this happens you do a "gbp pq import" and have the full power of
git rebas at your hands.
Cheers,
-- Guido
Reply to: