Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

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

Theodore Ts'o writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"):
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:51:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 
> >  Modified           Direct changes             git merge
> >   upstream files,    to upstream files          (.dsc: 1.0-with-diff or
> >  plus debian/*.                                 single-debian-patch)
> >  Maybe d/patches, depending.
> >  History has direct merges from upstream.
> 
> There's a variant of this which is to grab updates from upstream using
> "git cherry-pick -x COMMIT_ID ; git format-patch -o debian/patches -1 COMMIT_ID".
> 
> At the moment I'm updating debian/patches/series by hand, but I really
> should automate all of the above.

Thanks for the reply.  I think this approach is novel to me.

I think in my third column there, "Tools for manipulating delta from
upstream, building .dsc, etc.", "git merge" is not entirely right to
describe this approach, and certainly `1.0-with-diff' is wrong.

How do you update to a new upstream version while preserving your
delta queue ?  Just git merge with an upstream seems like it might
work sometimes but at some point the patches will need to be
refreshed...

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.