On Thu, 2017-01-12 at 21:46 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2017, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > > I don't use it often enough to remember all the details either. I don't
> > > recall the last time I had to do more than copy/paste a command from the
> > > man
> > > page (O
Hi,
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > I don't use it often enough to remember all the details either. I don't
> > recall the last time I had to do more than copy/paste a command from the
> > man
> > page (OK, git-dpm tag I can remember).
>
> Besides, git-dpm usually tells you
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Converting to dgit"):
> It's not so much the number of commands, but the distraction: thinking
> about a patch queue while in the middle of thinking about actual bugs.
> Personally, I find that mentally significant.
People who are used to trying
Hello Nikolaus,
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 01:08:02PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Aeh, what?
>
> If you make changes to debian/, you need only 'git commit'.
>
> If you change something in the upstream source (aka, add a new patch),
> the "dance" is:
>
> $ gbp pq import
> $ # make changes
> $ git
On Jan 06 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Nikolaus,
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:59:40PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> On Jan 05 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> >> But, as far as I can tell, doing this work up-front is much eas
Hello Nikolaus,
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:59:40PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Jan 05 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> >> But, as far as I can tell, doing this work up-front is much easier:
> >
> > Yes, but you have to do it every
On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 00:41 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, January 06, 2017 12:29:54 AM IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> > On 01/04/2017 05:42 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > git-dpm does too, and I agree it's nice.
> >
> > here's an opposite data point:
> >
> > being forced to use git-dpm b
On Friday, January 06, 2017 12:29:54 AM IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 05:42 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > git-dpm does too, and I agree it's nice.
>
> here's an opposite data point:
>
> being forced to use git-dpm by the python-modules-team policy - i
> haven't had a single joyful exper
On 01/04/2017 05:42 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> git-dpm does too, and I agree it's nice.
here's an opposite data point:
being forced to use git-dpm by the python-modules-team policy - i
haven't had a single joyful experience with git-dpm.
so far, every import of a new upstream release turned into a
On Jan 05 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> But, as far as I can tell, doing this work up-front is much easier:
>
> Yes, but you have to do it every single time you make changes that you
> want to be able to push (i.e. more than once per
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> But, as far as I can tell, doing this work up-front is much easier:
Yes, but you have to do it every single time you make changes that you
want to be able to push (i.e. more than once per upload). For a lot of
packages I maintain, t
On Jan 05 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Nikolaus,
>
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:44:14AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> No, that's a misunderstanding.
>>
>> "The information I need" is the Debian-specific modifications to the
>> current upstream source, separated into logically independent pat
Dear Nikolaus,
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:44:14AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> No, that's a misunderstanding.
>
> "The information I need" is the Debian-specific modifications to the
> current upstream source, separated into logically independent patches.
>
> Having separate patches in debian/p
Simon McVittie writes:
> I think the bottom line here is that what you are doing *is* rebasing:
> you are treating the new upstream (or new security-patched downstream)
> as the new baseline for your local work, discarding any of your changes
> that are no longer necessary, and adjusting the rest
On Jan 04 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Can you give an example? Eg if I have to Debian patched that both
>> p
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 at 22:17:33 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Usually what I have to do (and I think this is a pretty common use case
> for anyone who customizes Debian packages) is that I need to start from a
> package from unstable (or at least newer than stable, or oldstable, or
> ancient Ubuntu,
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Converting to dgit"):
> 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
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 04:33:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:01:22PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> 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 a
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Speaking as a Debian user who frequently has to apply local patches or
>> produce local versions of Debian packages for my job (usually weird
>> backports or bizarre local requirements), I cannot express to you how
>> much I prefer a
On January 4, 2017 12:33:43 AM EST, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Nikolaus Rath writes:
>>
>>> The thing that's delivered to users in 99% of the cases is the
>binary
>>> package. In the (comparatively) rare cases where the user is
>retrieving
>>> the source, I am
On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Nikolaus Rath writes:
>
>> The thing that's delivered to users in 99% of the cases is the binary
>> package. In the (comparatively) rare cases where the user is retrieving
>> the source, I am not convinced that most of these users truly prefer a
>> Debian-spe
On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 14:47 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> The central
issue here appears to be that none of the proposed ways
> of using git
within Debian help with that task.
On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 04:42 +, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> git-dpm does too, and I agree it's nice.
>
> It produces a p
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:36:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That said, gbp pq does something else I really like, namely it exports in
> the source package all of the metadata that anyone else would need to pick
> up the package without needing a copy of my Git repository (except for
> history).
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> The thing that's delivered to users in 99% of the cases is the binary
> package. In the (comparatively) rare cases where the user is retrieving
> the source, I am not convinced that most of these users truly prefer a
> Debian-specific source package with patches in debian/
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> 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 produc
On Jan 04 2017, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>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 reba
On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton 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
On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 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 i
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 04:33:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm unconvinced that any of that work would really be avoided via other
> mechanisms. The most time-consuming part is rebasing and squashing
> related changes together into one coherent diff, but that's going to be
> just as hard with
On January 3, 2017 7:33:39 PM EST, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Sean Whitton 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
>>> mo
Sean Whitton 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
>
Hello Nikolaus,
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:29:49AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > You mentioned previously that you're trying to use the
> > dgit-maint-merge(7) workflow. In that case, why do you want git-dpm?
>
> I don't. I was just trying to get a better
On Jan 03 2017, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Converting to dgit (was: How to get history into
> dgit)"):
>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 07:22:54PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> > I'll have to bring this up one more time. I just read
On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Nikolaus,
>
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 07:22:54PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> I'll have to bring this up one more time. I just read
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794244, and that
>> sounds (in "USING GIT-DPM WITH DGIT FOR THE FIR
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Converting to dgit (was: How to get history into
dgit)"):
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 07:22:54PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > I'll have to bring this up one more time. I just read
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=7
Hello Nikolaus,
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 07:22:54PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> I'll have to bring this up one more time. I just read
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794244, and that
> sounds (in "USING GIT-DPM WITH DGIT FOR THE FIRST TIME") as if I should
> also stitch the ex
37 matches
Mail list logo
