Re: Breaks in lenny
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:48:30 -0600, Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> said:
> Joey Hess dijo [Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:16:17PM -0500]:
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > Well, basically every discussion about this that I've seen on
>> > -devel, discussions on -mentors, the teams that I'm familiar with
>> > (pkg-perl is standardizing on quilt
>>
>> I'm a member of pkg-perl, and 52 packages out of ~500 use quilt. We
>> also have 20 packages using dpatch, and 45 using dbs. One or two
>> pkg-perl members like quilt, others, such as myself, find it of
>> dubious benefit on top of a proper version control system (though
>> certianly better than dbs!).
> The benefit is small if you (or your group, in any case) are the only
> person working on the package - but as soon as somebody else tries to
> make sense of your patches -possibly by running dpkg-source -x over
> its dsc- it all becomes unclear. Having named, independent patches
> _is_ much clearer for the adopter, the NMUer and similar cases.
I am not sure I follow. When you unpack a .dsc based on an
integration branch of a DVCS based package, you have the sources that
are going to be fed to the compiler -- no additional work is required
by the end user.
The adopter gets a set of branches, all named, with aproper
history, changelogs, and best of all, something that can compile
independently of all the other branches of development in the
integration branch. How is this less clear than what quilt does? If I
have 4 different features, can I easily ensure with quilt that all my
feature branches independently compile and work; as well as the
integration branch?
If that is the case, I have sadly underestimated bunches of
patches as opposed to proper feature branches + sloppy branch +
integration branch work-flow that I have come to use.
manoj
--
We just joined the civil hair patrol!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: