Hi Sandro, On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:13:32AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> wrote: > > Here's the page I mentioned regarding a *proposed* transition plan to using > > git for team packages. It's more or less a brain dump right now, and don't > > feel like you need to read it before the DC14 session. > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging > > nothing against your effort or experiments (I really appreciate it), > but I still don't see what is the advantages of moving to Git. > > [...] > > Offline commits? how many time (for real..) you badly needed it? i > guess so few that if you (for one time) just do a big commit instead > of a storm of micro commit the world wont stop I really use this all the time, as I often work in the train. It's not only local commits, it's also log, blame, diff,... Having said that, I use git-svn and hgsubversion with the packages I work on in the debian python team so that I can actually work like that. What this lacks is... > is there anything else so "attractive" about git? ... semi-automatic handling of debian/patches. I'm tired of refreshing and deleting patches from debian/patches with every new upstream release. As far as I've seen, git-dpm and gbp pq automate most of it and only ask you when the patch conflicts, which is exactly the only time when you need human intervention. The tools should take care of the rest (refreshing patches, dropping patches that are now applied upstream), and it's something that, as far as I know, can already be done with git workflows. Cheers, Javi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature