On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:33:10PM +0000, David Nusinow wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:40:18PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > > FWIW, my vote (now from a purely upstream perspective) is to go with > > git, despite my public reservations about git at the time we moved. > > > > If the eventual goal is to get all the patches merged upstream -- and I > > really hope it is -- then tracking git makes this infinitely easier, and > > infinitely more appealing from both sides to do so. > > > > (But maybe I'm missing something, because I never saw the point of the > > vendor branches.) > > Yeah, getting all our patches merged upstream is of course a goal of mine, > so this is heartening. Just out of curiosity, how would git be more helpful > than producing a diff and applying it to the upstream tree, followed by > commit 'n push? Oh, if you're committing it anyway, then that works too, but if you have it in git, then given that all you need is 'git push origin' (to push everything), or whatever, then the barrier to entry for you is lowered a great deal, and the barrier to entry to us finding out exactly what Debian's done (I'm obviously comfortable dissecting Debian packages, others are not) is also lowered a great deal. Cheers, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature