Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"):
> I don't know whether this is relevant to what you are asking, but:
> >  Main packaging     Delta from upstream     Tools for manipulating
> >   git branch         represented as          delta from upstream,
> >   contains                                   building .dsc, etc.
> > 
> >  Unmodified         debian/patches             gbp, gbp pq
> >   upstream files,    (only)                    quilt / dquilt
> >  plus debian/*                                 Manual patch editing
> >  incl. d/patches
> 
> This could cover two very IMO different cases -- The git repository
> is a clone of the upstream development repository, incorporating its
> full development history (and perhaps sharing "existence" with the
> upstream development), or the git repository incorporates only the
> content of upstream released tarballs (i.e. via gbp / pristine-tar).
> The packaging workflow is quite different between those cases.

Yes.  I think this basically always true: that is, almost every
Debian git branch format can be used with either of these kinds of
representations of the upstream.

The resulting workflows are indeed very different for "new upstream
version" (but not for other changes).

I'm not sure yet how to report this in my survey results, but I'm
leaning towards a separate table.

Ian.

-- 
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.