Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format
- From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:57:45 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 1a48db6d-85bf-63b1-20ce-b274a73e341c@metux.net>
- In-reply-to: <tslk1e4qd85.fsf@suchdamage.org>
- References: <23789.22766.778482.983490@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <e3b5ce21-0c77-705b-52b6-5c2fdf049576@metux.net> <23789.39548.760703.451868@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <b007af80-625e-aa69-0098-8d0cb7f6740c@metux.net> <23790.29197.95639.686477@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <tsl1s0h8m1g.fsf@suchdamage.org> <87woi5f1ex.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <tslk1e4qd85.fsf@suchdamage.org>
On 02.06.19 16:22, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Nikolaus" == Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:
>
>
> Yes, but the lack of similarity is the thing I find interesting.
> In git-pdm (and git-debrebase), you retain all the rebases and stitch
> them together with various pseudo-merges into a combined history.
>
> If you could avoid that and have a more pure rebase workflow, I think it
> would be nice.
> As Ian points out, we don't know how to do that because we don't know
> how to figure out whether you have the latest rebase.
Could you give me some more details on the intended workflow ?
Why does one need that information at all ?
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Reply to: