[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Feasibility of backports?



Hi,

Am Donnerstag, den 22.03.2012, 12:38 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> > > A policy/technical question now: let's say we have backports for one
> > > package (either just one or out of many). With git-buildpackage, I'd
> > > just use a bpo-squeeze branch, which would be trivial to setup. How does
> > > this work with darcs? I'm reading http://wiki.darcs.net/BestPractices
> > > and it seems to say it doesn't support _any_ kind of multiple branches
> > > in one repository?
> > 
> > No, in Darcs, a repository is a branch (in a way similar to SVN, where
> > branches are directories in the virtual SVN tree). So what I did for
> > expeirmental is to clone the repo and put it
> > in /darcs/pkg-haskell/experimental – you can do the same
> > with /darcs/pkg-haskell/squeeze-backports.
>
> Ah, I see, one repo/directory per package under that?

Correct.

> I would guess there's no nice merge/cherry-pick between the repos then.

Why? Cherry-picking was invented by Darcs (or so I have been told :-))
Just say
$ darcs pull path/or/url/to/other/repo
and it will interactively allow you to cherry-pick the changes. And the
great thing is: The cherry-picked change will be logically the same (not
just similar as in git), as the order of patches is not fixed in Darcs.

(It can get slightly less nice if there are conflicts, e.g. due to the
debian/changelog entries.)

> Not speaking down on Darcs, just that with git-buildpackage this
> workflow seems more mature. On the other hand, upstream sources not kept
> in Darcs, so it is simpler in this model, and you don't need to merge
> that much.

I get to differ. git-buildpackage has always been a PITA to me, mostly
due to it trying to use more than one git branch for _one_ line of
development (master, upstream, tar-pristine); I had to manually clean up
so often. For example, if you use "debcheckout" you will not have all
branches set up correctly. The fact that git-buildpackage has dedicated
pull and clone commands shows that the workflow is not good.

Other git-based workflows are nicer, though. For complex upstreams, I
like git-dpm.

Greetings,
Joachim


-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: