Re: Proposal: Switch to linear git history
Moin
Sadly I did not get any response.
Bastian
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 05:30:26PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> The repository for the Linux kernel in Debian currently makes heavy use
> of merges, which will always conflict due to changelog changes. This
> constitutes high cognitive busy load, for pretty small gains.
>
> After already removing the manually modified abiname, we can drop more
> manual work with that. As the now requires operarions will not longer
> produce conflicts, we can easily create tools if we want.
>
> What did I miss?
>
> ## Current state
>
> The linux repo uses a kind of classic Debian like branch setup:
> - master: for development work, uploaded to experimental
> - sid: uploaded to sid
> - bookworm
> - bookworm-backports
> - bookworm-security
>
> Between different branches a lot of merges happen. Between master and
> sid in both directions, so changes can be done in both places and
> changelogs show a linear history. Between sid and *-backports.
>
> Those merges are done by hand. In many cases conflict with each other
> due to mainly changelog changes, which needs to cleaned up by hand.
>
> ## Proposal
>
> Stop merging back changes, but create version distinct branches.
> Something like that:
>
> master: uploaded to experimental
> -> debian/main/6.6: uploaded to unstable and stable releases
> -> debian/backport/6.6.1-1: uploaded to backports
> -> debian/security/6.6.1+1: extra security releases
>
> ## Disadvantages
>
> - All changes need to go via master, which they should do anyway.
> - In case of patch backports:
> - A bug will be closed multiple times.
> - The exact version a change reached unstable is not longer visible.
> - No automatic way for patches required in the backports suites (I have
> a larger config overhaul, where we could add something for that.)
>
> --
> The heart is not a logical organ.
> -- Dr. Janet Wallace, "The Deadly Years", stardate 3479.4
>
--
Men will always be men -- no matter where they are.
-- Harry Mudd, "Mudd's Women", stardate 1329.8
Reply to: