Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits
On October 12, 2014 2:49:47 AM EDT, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>On 10/10/2014 12:59 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
>>
>>> Changing the number of commits is solving the wrong problem. The
>>> problem that needs to be solved is including upstream commits.
>That's
>>> thoroughly uninteresting for a packaging team.
>>
>> Agreed. This is a direct result of rebasing Debian packaging history
>> onto upstream VCS history, and keeping them all in the same repo as
>one
>> undifferentiated history, no?
>
>The IRC bot and the commit-by-email function, while being nice, aren't
>going to be the decision making features. What's going to be is what is
>the most convenient for doing the packaging work.
>
>> It's a good illustration of why I much prefer the workflow of a
>separate
>> VCS for the ‘debian/’ directory, merged with upstream source only at
>> build time. The results of the merge are in a separate location and
>are
>> never checked into VCS, they're used only for the build.
>>
>> See ‘git-buildpackage(1)’ for the ‘--git-overlay’ option, which AFAIK
>> does this.
>>
>> That way, the history of the Debian packaging VCS is entirely about
>> what happened to Debian packaging; upstream VCS history is elsewhere.
>> That seems to address the trouble entirely.
>
>There are perfectly valid points for using what you describe above. But
>also, there's some other reasons why it's preferable to have upstream
>source within the VCS packaging branches.
>
>During Debconf 14, we had this discussion. Only Paultag wanted this,
>everyone else didn't. Let's say there's a few more other people which
>were not accounted for and that were not at Debconf, those who prefers
>having upstream source code in the VCS are still the majority.
>
>Please, let's move on and not discuss it again...
>
>Also, during the Debconf discussion, we decided we would use the
>pristine-tar workflow, *not* using upstream VCS merge. A
>"git-import-orig" normally goes into a single commit, which I don't
>think would bother anyone (not on the list, or on IRC). While I don't
>agree with this decision, I prefer to just import upstream VCS and do
>packaging based on tags, but I will still respect it when packaging in
>the DPMT. Anyone who doesn't respect what we are collectively agree on
>should IMO take the blame for what happened on IRC and on the commit
>list, and pointing fingers at whoever configured it is IMO wrong.
It's my fault someone else configured their git repos so IRC and the ML get flooded? Nonsense.
I don't know who caused it to happen, but that's definitely where I'm (correctly) pointing fingers.
Scott K
Reply to: