Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format
Hi Ian,
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 12:49:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andreas Tille writes ("Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format"):
> > I admit I did not joined the dgit discussion - may be that's the reason
> > I can not really match the branches that are used in Perl team policy
> >
> > https://perl-team.pages.debian.net/git.html#repository_layout
> >
> > (which is used by several other teams I'm working in) to the table in
> > the Wiki.
>
> My table is supposed to be useable without knowing anything about
> dgit.
That's the case for me. I need to admit that I did not used dgit. The
reason is that I'm working in teams who all have Git repositories on
Salsa that more or less are following what was described in the Perl
team policy. I live under the impression that dgit is a tool that I do
not need in this case - thus I did not spent any time to learn it.
> I looked at the perl page you link to, and it says:
>
> repository layout
>
> We're using the typical git-buildpackage branch layout: Upstream
> sources are kept (in plain, uncompressed form) in the upstream
> branch. The data needed to regenerate original source tarballs from
> the upstream branch is kept with the help of pristine-tar(1) in the
> pristine-tar branch. Upstream sources are merged with Debian-specific
> changes in the master branch, which is the usual place to work in.
>
> I think this means you `git merge' the `upstream' branch into your
> `master' branch.
That's correct. It is done automatically when doing
gbp import-orig --pristine-tar
> What it doesn't say is how changes to the upstream files are
> represented. Can you explain ?
Its the same as in any non-Git related workflow: It works with quilt
patches.
> I tried reading the web page but I am trying to avoid reading and
> understanding the manpages for every one of our hundreds of
> git/package/branch management utilities, and the bulk of the page was
> just runes for dpt or gbp.
>
> There's a section "Patches" which mentions quilt(1). So I think the
> answer to the question "how are changes to upstream files represented"
> is "the upstream files are not directly modified in the master branch;
> instead, there are patches to them, in patches in debian/patches" ?
That's correct.
> That would mean you are using the form I call "unapplied".
OK, thanks for the clarification.
> > > Please let us know if we have missed one. It is probably better if
> > > you ask us rather than just adding it, unless you're sure that what
> > > you are adding isn't the same as one of the existing ones. In
> > > particular it seems that "unapplied" is used by a large number of
> > > people with disjoint tooling and disjoint terminology.
> >
> > So I'm just asking if its just me not understanding the table properly
> > or whether the layout I'm used to in close to all teams I'm working in
> > is not mentioned.
>
> I think we have a terminological problem.
Most probably.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: