On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote:
> Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:36:22AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
>>> I still haven't really made up my mind if I want to use git-maint-merge
>>> or git-dpm. Russ recently raised a valid point with the Debian
>>> modifications over-time becoming all tangled up and impossible to
>>> separate.
>
>> I also read Russ's e-mail, but I'm not yet convinced that powerful tools
>> like `git diff` and `git log` won't be able to give you the information
>> you need pretty quickly. It might take a little time to craft the right
>> command, but that is easily outweighed by the time saved curating a
>> patch series.
>
> Curating a patch series is only 5% slower than commiting directly to the
> Git repository to me. I just have to remember to gbp pq import before
> making new changes, gbp pq export when I'm done, and once in a great while
> I have to do a small bit of rebasing to merge changes back into other
> patches. It's quite easy for someone who is very familiar with Git, using
> good tools. That 5% would be even less if I did it more often.
When talking about percentages, I think it's worth keeping in mind the
1000% longer that it takes to comprehend a diff of two patches-unapplied
trees (as gbp produces them) over a diff of two patches-applied trees
(as git-dpm and dgit with maint-merge workflow produce). I don't
understand how gbp became so much more popular than git-dpm.
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.«
