Hello Guido, Guido Günther [2015-02-17 9:17 +0100]: > This is to be expected since version 217 was imported to > 'experimental' without merging from branch 'upstream'. > > Commit > > a05fbd0f2be05e61037dc57d239a436f651519fe
Ah indeed, most upstream updates have a "Merge tag 'upstream/XXX' into experimental" after "Imported Upstream version XXX", but 217 doesn't. Probably I already had some trouble with this in 218, as curiously the 218 update has two identically-looking commits 99af89298 and f47781d88. So I suppose something went wrong with importing 217. With my manual conflict resolution I now do have the two proper "Import" and "Merge" commits for 219 again, so I suppose from now on future upstream updates should work again. Thanks for pointing this out! > We should probably just add a mode where 'gbp-import-orig' just > replaces the packaging branch (experimental) with the content from the > upstream branch and only keeps the debian/ treeish since with 3.0 > (quilt) one usually doesn't have any modifications outside of debian/. Yeah, that's more or less what I did to resolve the conflicts. > If this sounds reasonable (and you aggree with the above anaylsis) > then I'll go ahead and turn this bug into a wishlist bug with the > above feature, o.k.? That sounds good. Indeed we never want to track inline modifications of the upstream sources (3.0/quilt), we use gbp-pq to maintain the changes (nice tool, BTW!). So either feel free to close this as pilot error (I can't reconstruct any more what happened with 217), or we retitle it to that wishlist bug. Thanks! Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
