On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:34:39PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 07:53:13AM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > [...] > > > 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. > > Are you implying that we will drop our patch system? If not, I am > curious to know how having our patches in git will help merging with > upstream. No, not necessarily. The reason having your patches in git will help merging, is because git diff will work fine, and git format-patch origin will give you a list of all your patches against upstream, and if sent as they are, we can just apply them with git-applymbox, and it preserves date, ancestry (it gets applied at the right point in time, which makes merges a lot easier: git will DTRT based on commits since, instead of manually fixing rejects), and authorship information. It also gives you a proper modification history.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature