Re: PAPT git migration
On May 31, 2017 7:16:39 PM EDT, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 at 00:16:45 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> Hi Barry (2017.05.31_23:32:20_+0200)
>> > $ gbp pq export
>> > - This doesn't work until you at least do a first pq import, but
>now I see the
>> > d/p/changlog-docs patch gets changed in ways that lose
>information:
>>
>> Sounds like a limitation of pq import. I'm suprised it doesn't
>support
>> DEP3.
>
>DEP3 describes some metadata fields, and a family of incompatible
>formats
>(which do not necessarily seem to be designed for machine-readability)
>that
>use those metadata fields.
>
>gbp pq import consumes patches in `git format-patch` format. One of the
>possible formats in the DEP3 family (with RFC2822-style
>From/Date/Subject,
>unindented long description, and all non-email fields in a trailing
>pseudo-header similar to common practice for Signed-off-by) is
>compatible
>with that:
>
> From: ...
> Date: ...
> Subject: First line of description
>
> More description
> more description
> yet more description
>
> Bug-Debian: ...
> Applied-upstream: ...
> More-DEP3-fields-in-pseudo-header: ...
> ---
> optional diffstat here
>
> diff --git ...
> ...
>
>but this style (which is a DEP3 invention, and not used outside Debian
>and its
>derivatives) is not:
>
> Author: ...
> Description: First line of description
> More description
> more description
> yet more description
> Bug-Debian: ...
>
>Converting the latter into the former seems like a valid gbp pq feature
>request, but might not be practically feasible (detecting that style
>mechanically so that it can be parsed is probably not trivial).
>
>For packages that are maintained in git, either upstream or downstream,
>preferring the former format makes a lot of sense IMO. Anything that
>relies
>on round-tripping patches through git like gbp pq does is going to want
>git-format-patch-compatible patches.
>
>> So, our options are:
>> 1. fix pq
>> 2. modify all the patches to a format that pq understands
>> 3. leave this to the maintainer to resolve (I think we expect all pq
>use
>> to be entirely local, so pq use isn't something we're imposing on
>> anyone)
>
>I think it would make sense to leave the patches as-is during initial
>conversion, and expect maintainers who are interested in using gbp pq
>to resolve this when they import and re-export the patch series.
>Hopefully
>a lot of current patches will become unnecessary with newer upstream
>software versions, so preferring git format-patch style for new patches
>might be a good "90%" solution.
>
> S
As long as we have one team solution for this that is documented I don't care what it is as long as it works. I don't think we should have two approaches. Let's pick one and use it. Team members should not be surprised when they look at a team git repo.
Scott K
Reply to: