On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:01:38PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/04/21 at 11:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
> >
> > For this I disagree. At least until we have something acceptable that
> > can be used in modern git workflows including operations like cherry
> > picking and merge requests.
>
> Is that a real issue in practice?
Whatever the case, past discussions all proved that this point is
contentious. For now I'd just give up in normalizing this case in
favour of all the other smells and all the other cases for now (like
1.0+random patch system). I'm sure once the number of 1.0 goes down
more and more this topic will find a solution by itself.
The number of 1.0 with direct changes is small enough that I don't think
the random passerby has many changes to change upon and be confused by
it, so the effort required to make people agree is IMHO not worth it at
this point in time.
> If you can export the changes made to
> upstream sources as a single big diff, surely you can also export them
> as separate patches in 3.0 (quilt)?
FWIW, please don't forget the single-debian-patch option for
dpkg-source, but still I'd rather not drag a discussion on this topic
once again.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature