Re: [PATCH] proposed v3 source format using .git.tar.gz
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:16:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 20:33:58 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 10:49:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > You probably mean source package here and not .deb. Also the original
> > proposal just means shipping the repository data, since most DVCS can
> > easily create a working directory from that.
> Hmm. The repository data, as far as I can tell, means the name
> of the archive, and the location. Do you really mean we are not
> shipping any, say, foo.c file in the sources, just a locatio where you
> can get the foo.c file from, at a particular version?
bzr and git always ship the complete repository with each working
directory. This is why they are called "distributed". Arch seems to be some
weird thing in between truly central and truly distributed VCS.
> > The whole idea of the proposal is to NOT create an export.
> If we are not creating and export, and we are only shipping the
> repository data, how come there needs to be a check for uncommitted
> files? If the changes are uncommitted, that means the repo does not
> know about it; and if we only ship the repository data, we are not
> shipping stuff not in the repo.
> What am I missing?
They might be uncommitted because the maintainer forgot to commit them.
The only question is whether we should abort, commit the changes, or
ignore the changes. There is no technical problem with either of these
Frank Lichtenheld <email@example.com>