Re: Enhancing 3.0 (git) source package format

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:

> ]] Goswin von Brederlow 
>
> | Remove 3.0 (qit) format completly. A full history bloats the source
> | and a cut down history has no advantage over a plain source.
>
> I think this would be a mistake.  I'm increasingly considering a full
> git clone the source of my software (in the «preferred form of
> modification») and so having dpkg able to natively consume and produce
> that preferred form would be very useful.

Isn't your prefered form to git clone/uppdate/merge from the actual
repository used by the maintainer?

A copy of the maintainers repository as it was 2 years ago (think
stable) is not as usefull as a fresh clone.

> | It is far more usefull to put the url for the real git repository into
> | the control file. The number of people wanting to use git (instead of
> | just a snapshot of the source) but unable to git clone from the
> | internet is really miniscule and does not warrant the bloat for
> | everybody else.
>
> I don't see why you would do one or the otherrather than both?  Being
> able to do git log and such on the result of an apt-get-ed package is
> quite useful, without having to wait for a random upstream git
> repository that might not be available.

Is it? Do you actualy do that?

And we do have git.debian.org with high availability. It should not be
a random upstream git that might or might not be there. Make it a
reliable repository that will be there.

My feeling is that 3.0 (git) format adds bloat to the source packages
that hardly anyone ever uses, makes it that much harder for any
non-git user to edit the source and is of little extra value when the
maintainers git is month or years further along.

MfG
        Goswin