Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves from tarballs to git
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> […] I have not taught dgit how to convert [separate Debian
> packaging-only repository and upstream source repository] into a git
> tree that contains the [combined] source code.
One interpretation of “convert [separate repositories] into [one Git
tree]” is that it's a flag-day, point of no return conversion that
precludes the separate-Debian-packaging-repository workflow from that
point forward. If so, that wouldn't be enough to convince me to use
DGit, because I consider the separate-Debian-packaging-repository
workflow superior for many cases.
Contrariwise, on the assumption we are instead talking about a
“conversion to a Git tree” that would seamlessly let DGit support the
ongoing workflow of Debian packaging in a repository separate from any
upstream code:
> That feature would be the wishlist bug
> #903392 "want support for packaging-only maintainer views"
> which I've already mentioned once in this thread, where I explained
> why implementing it is a low priority.
While acknowledging you are under no obligation to implement features
demanded by others, I'll point out that for as long as DGit lacks
support for that workflow, you won't get much user feedback from people
whose Debian packages need that workflow and therefore are not
knowledgeable DGit users.
So for as long as that persists, it will take special consious effort to
remember that there's a class of Debian package maintainers who would
like to become knowledgeable about DGit but can't yet; that the current
DGit user base is not representative of that class of potential user.
I trust you already know this, but it bears explicit expression from
time to time :-)
--
\ “Our task must be to free ourselves from our prison by widening |
`\ our circle of compassion to embrace all humanity and the whole |
_o__) of nature in its beauty.” —Albert Einstein |
Ben Finney
Reply to: