Re: dpkg-source's future and relation with VCS
Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> (it's not yet clear to me that Git can usefully represent changesets
>> via feature branches, but that's another argument that is already
>> ongoing elsewhere).
> People are arguing about that because bikeshedding and random discussion
> of lattices, is, apparently, fun.
Actually, no, it isn't. The emotion that I'm feeling is frustration
rather than fun. Which may well mean that I just shouldn't do it and just
let the whole thing go if I don't agree rather than trying to explain why
However, if I did that, I'd miss prompting some really interesting bits of
> apt-cache show stgit
This is fascinating because it changes the underlying assumption
entirely. This *doesn't* maintain patches as feature branches, which is
the solution that I'd heard before. It maintains patches as git commits,
which is a much more natural solution and makes considerably more sense to
me (since fundamentally that's what a patch is, whereas maintaining
patches as feature branches undoes the node to arrow transformation that's
fundamental to why I find git useful).
Thank you! I now need to go play with this. This may give me exactly
what I want. I'm sorry that I didn't look at this thoroughly before.
(The main open question that I have at the moment is whether StGIT can
maintain history of the commits, which is something that quilt + a VCS can
do and which is occasionally useful. But I need to dig in further to
understand what it can or can't do.)
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>