Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:31:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think Adam's point is that there's a one-to-one correspondance >> between a 3.0 (quilt) package and a 3.0 (git) package that consists >> solely of an import of the most recent upstream source plus one commit >> per patch. > You can trim the history at any commits you want. Trimming the history of commits doesn't help. In order to have something that's equivalent from a license review standpoint, you have to rebase all of the commits into something akin to the quilt presentation, which means merging commits that make a single change in multiple chunks, collapsing history, and so forth. Otherwise, all the intermediate commits have to be double-checked for licensing, which is exactly the concern. > Why? You get a working repository that's hash-compatible with upstream. > It has anything you need for forward work. You don't because you have to rebase to get the commit count down to a managable review load, as mentioned above. > A good majority of free software projects use git, so requiring > knowledge of git is not a big downside. Not so with something as > obscure as quilt... The difference is that you don't need to know anything at all about quilt to pull the patches out of the package, and patches are a much more widely-used format than Git. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d2o4bk0g....@windlord.stanford.edu
