Hello, On Sat 14 Aug 2021 at 07:55AM +01, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 03:31:02PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> For example, there are those of us who think that the downsides of the >> combination of 3.0 (quilt) and patches stored unapplied in git are >> significant, and so we have made attempts to provide alternatives, such >> as git-debrebase. Contributing to Debian would be a lot less fun if we >> were asked to just set these reasons aside and use something which to us >> is clearly technically inferior. > > You can appreciate that the decision you took, in your interest, has the > direct cost that Romain mentioned, right? Even if I agree with you about > the technical merits of your approach, and I do, the consequence is an > increasingly complex and non-uniform surface area for other > contributors. Right. To be clear, I think that it's in the project's interests, not just my own. I made my remarks in terms of 'fun', but I don't mean fun for its own sake / for my own sake. > The task would be mammoth, and the likelyhood of success not > guaranteed, but I think in these circumstances implementing a > technical improvement to a project-wide process would be the way to > go. This pre-supposes that there *was* a project-wide process. There I > agree with other posters on this thread: this is where to start. I'm sceptical that we yet have enough knowledge about all this to work in any way other than bottom-up, as we are doing. I might not like patches-unapplied much, but I don't deny there are some advantages to that approach over the ones I prefer, in certain packaging situations. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature