Re: [RFC] Proposal for new source format
Russell Stuart <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Harking back to the time we removed the randomness generator from
> openssl, it's very nice to have a single patch say "it was removed
> because it wasn't exercised in the tests. upstream didn't respond to
> requests for comment" rather than having it interspersed with the 650
> odd other lines of other changes we carry with no explanation.
Git neither hurts nor helps that. quilt neither hurts nor helps that.
This is a request for package maintainers to record changes as clear,
separable, single-topic changes with clear documentation, something that's
possible with all of these tools and possible to fail to do with all of
I completely agree with you (well, for most packages; in some cases, we've
effectively forked the package and attempting to trace changes back to
some ancient upstream release is not useful, but that's a separate
problem), but it's orthogonal to this thread, and it's confusing to raise
this point here as if anyone in this thread is arguing against this.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>