On 24 August 2014 04:24, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > Right, exactly. That's super-annoying to do if you were keeping > everything mixed together in the master branch, much easier if you were > keeping separate branches for each fix but keeping those separate branches > is itself incredibly annoying, and utterly trivial if you're using gbp pq > or git-dpm. The latter take a little bit of getting used to, and are then > almost as fast as just making changes directly in Git, but let you > actually send isolated fixes upstream. >
I would find it annoying to keep around lots of branches in the hope that one day upstream might integrate them. (One reason I also like Gerrit) I like to minimize the number of branches I have, so I can easily keep track of what I am actually working on. More then likely, in X years time when upstream looks at it, the branch will be gone. Not relevant if you have a very responsive upstream I would never use quilt directly. Been there, done that, have no interest > in doing it again. I like Git. But using it as an export format for > patch-queue branches works really well. What do you use instead? quilt is the only tool I know who to use here, and it is starting to irritate me - I keep making changes and forgetting to add the files to the patch first, and screwing everything up. What tool(s) should I learn to solve this? -- Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au>
