control: tag -1 +patch Dear Daniel, Ian,
Thank you for this feedback.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:09:26PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Some source packages generated by dgit have a single debian patch, with
> instructions in debian/source/patch-header to use dgit to obtain the
> patch series. That's advised by dgit-maint-merge(7).
>
> Please consider having the generated source package contain a proper
> quilt series, in order to make it easier for people to do QA work across
> the archive without learning a different tool for each source package.
>
> This way, the maintainer would be using dgit with dgit's patch queue
> facilities, but a person who does 'apt-get source' would see a patch
> queueu, regardless of which tools the maintainer uses (dgit or anything
> else).
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 06:33:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Control: severity -1 normal
> Control: retitle -1 dgit-maint-merge(7): clarify patch series non-goal
I'd like to state explicitly that a /manually curated/ patch series is
indeed a non-goal of the workflow I describe in dgit-maint-merge(7):
Maintaining convenient and powerful git workflows takes priority
over the usefulness of the raw Debian source package. The Debian
archive is thought of as an output format.
> Looking at dgit-maint-merge(7), I think it doesn't make this
> particular tradeoff clear enough. I think perhaps it should be
> enhanced with an additional bullet point, something like this:
>
> o It is not necessary to maintain the divergence from upstream
> (if any) as a patch series. That is: it is not necessary to
> maintain the delta as a stack of individual commits or patches,
> to be applied in turn to the current upstream.
I'd prefer not to add this as another bullet point, because the second
bullet point already says that manually curating a series of quilt
patches is a non-goal. Ian's text also overstates the case: you can
often get a perfectly serviceable patch series out of git, using the
sample commands in debian/source/patch-header.
Instead, I'd like to add text to say something about the kinds of
packages for which the workflow is unsuitable. I'd already been
thinking about submitting a patch to do that since the recent discussion
on -devel, and I think it might be sufficient to close this bug.[1]
Please consider the attached patch.
[1] https://spwhitton.name/blog/entry/jan17vcspkg/
--
Sean Whitton
From 691d5b3526710acf78910ad87f9f7ce207ff6d5f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:35:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] dgit-maint-merge(7): Packages for which workflow is unsuitable Signed-off-by: Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> --- debian/changelog | 4 ++++ dgit-maint-merge.7.pod | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index fcd09b0..9ababee 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -3,6 +3,10 @@ dgit (3.3~) unstable; urgency=medium Packaging: * Remove redundant Recommends on libtext-iconv-perl. + Documentation: + * dgit-maint-merge(7): Discuss packages for which the workflow is + unsuitable. [Sean Whitton] Closes:#851897 + -- dgit (3.2) unstable; urgency=medium diff --git a/dgit-maint-merge.7.pod b/dgit-maint-merge.7.pod index 0d8b2da..ed51565 100644 --- a/dgit-maint-merge.7.pod +++ b/dgit-maint-merge.7.pod @@ -34,6 +34,12 @@ that upstream makes available for download. =back +This workflow is less suitable for some packages. When the Debian +delta is very complex, with large parts not expected to ever be merged +upstream, it might be preferable to maintain the delta as a rebasing +patch series. If this applies to your package, consider +dgit-maint-gbp(7), and see Debian bug #720177. + =head1 INITIAL DEBIANISATION This section explains how to start using this workflow with a new -- 2.11.0
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
