On 08/26/2014 10:53 PM, Brian May wrote:
On 26 August 2014 16:12, Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@golden-gryphon.com>
wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Serializing_Git_Branches.pdf has a
demonstration of the differences in history given an upstream and two
feature branches with two commits each, using git-dpm and git-debcherry.
Interesting review.
However, I think there might be some errors.
I don't think you should use normally be feature branches with git-dpm.
Rather you edit the commit directly (whether by rebase or --amend).
As I have commented elsewhere in this thread, that restriction makes
git-dpm a less viable alternative for complex packages.
Also I think there is an error in the way you have done the git-dpm, e.g.
when committing B21, you have added to the existing B12 patch instead of
replacing it. Similarly when adding A31, you haven't replaced A11.
That is really a matter of displaying history. The diagram displays Git
history, not the patches; when B21 is committed, there is no patch
representing B12, however, that commit is still in <top>/.git/objects
since it is a parent of the Node D3. This is relevant when I am trying
to trying to bisect and understand history. git-debcherry has fewer
commits being carried around, which makes it easier on my aging brain.
Manoj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ff7a8d.5080...@golden-gryphon.com
