On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:37:24PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
IMHO GBP approach is counter-productive, with needlessly complicated
workflow, redundant upstream branch(es) and incredibly inconvenient merge
of debian packaging and upstream files in "master".
I agree in principle but my solution does not involve giving up on git
packaging tools entirely :)
Here is some criticism:
https://salsa.debian.org/onlyjob/notes/-/wikis/no-gbp
Thanks for putting that together. I always struggle to articulate, in
detail, the many ways that gbp is a terrible workflow :)
However: I think your criticism on space/bandwith use is unfounded. Git is
spectacularly efficient at packing history. Even when it isn't because
there's just so much of it --depth=N is always there to only download a
compressed tarball's equivalent of data but with git benefits.
I'd also like to point out that git is more useful for bandwidth constraint
users because it does delta-transfers. Imagine downloading multiple
versions of 0ad-data to do some archaeology.