Am Montag, den 19.05.2008, 00:18 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > On Sun, 18 May 2008, David Bremner wrote: > > > At the moment I am preoccupied with deciding how to best transition > > my quilt based packages to git. Of course keeping using quilt is an > > option. > > Uhm, I hope so. I really hope that using quilt _and_ git is no > contradiction. It isn't. I know some packages that use quilt and Git. It's essentially which way of working you prefer: If you use branches, git-buildpackage is dealing with them, creating a .diff.gz as usual. This has the consequence that all logical "patches" are merged into one and you need to checkout the package repo in order to see which diff chunk is what logical change. By using quilt inside Git you preserve that information for someone having just the source package, though the package is not build-ready, as some rule has to be called to patch the sources. (This should be solved with the "3.0 (quilt)" format.) Both ways have their advantages and drawbacks. (Remember the discussion on debian-devel?) A developer working on a package has to know either quilt or Git in order to understand the patching. As I do not know what people prefer or know, I can't say which approach is better. Having tried both, I tend to like the "branch" approach better, as it feels more natural when working with Git. But I think everyone has to decide it for h(er|im)self. Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil