Re: Enhancing 3.0 (git) source package format
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 22:44 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Goswin von Brederlow
>
> | Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
> |
> | > ]] Goswin von Brederlow
> | > | 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.
> | >
> | > Even if the upstream VCS has moved on, you save a bit of bandwidth by
> | > having something that comes with half the history, even if you don't
> | > have all of it.
> |
> | Weigh that against the bandwidth spend for mirrors and for people that
> | do not need or want the history and the extra cost in terms of needing
> | more CD/DVD images to contain a source snapshot. Also the cost for
> | snapshot.debian.org having to have the extra bloat for every single
> | version uploaded. For a worst case take linux-2.6 as example.
>
> If we (as I do) consider history part of the source, that size increase
> is irrelevant.
>
> | Also why would you download the source package in the first place if
> | what you really want is a git checkout. The extra bandwidth for a git
> | checkout would only be as much as the 3.0 (git) format would lack in
> | history.
>
> Because I want to add a patch that changes a behaviour in a stable
> package, and I want to add that patch in a way that gives me the least
> work, both when writing it, but also when bringing it forward. Also, my
> mirror might be local; git.d.o and random upstream repositories
> certainly are not.
It's possible to specify a (signed) tag somewhere. You don't need a
separate blurb for very release.
--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
Reply to: