On Jan 03 2017, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote: > On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> wrote: >> Hello Russ, >> >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:29:24AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches, >>> which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if someone was >>> packaging in Git and just randomly commits things directly to the >>> packaging branch intermixed with merges from upstream. A few releases >>> done that way will leave you almost completely unable to extract a rebased >>> patch set against the current upstream source. (I have made this mistake >>> so many times with my own packages.) >> >> Aside from `git debcherry`, which was already mentioned, git itself can >> get you this information. For example: >> >> git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian' >> >> This will get you all commits which touched the upstream source that >> have not been merged upstream. There can be as many merge commits as >> you like in between. > > Yes, but that's not as useful as what git-debcherry produces. > > For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above [...]
This should of course have been "...merge conflict when merging in a new
upstream version".
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
