Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On 01/04/2017 06:30 AM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > But I am not sure if a package structure like > > mypkg/upstream/* > mypkg/debian/* > mypkg/patches/* (?) > > would have any *practical* benefits over the current situation It would have the huge benefit that upstream .git* files would stay in the u

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi, On Sun, 01 Jan 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > (I'm not using because > > > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) > >

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:14:09AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 10 2017, Guido Günther wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > >> On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: > >> > Vincent Bernat writes: > >> > > >> >> There have been a lot of complaints about it

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 10 2017, Guido Günther wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: >> > Vincent Bernat writes: >> > >> >> There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to >> >> use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it p

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: > > Vincent Bernat writes: > > > >> There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to > >> use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it produces a messy history when > >> you are wor

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Nikolaus Rath writes: > > > Are there really upstreams that do that? I'd expect that the primary > > consumer of Debian patches are other distributions, downstreams, and > > users. > > > I'd think that anything that's relevant for u

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 08:36:13AM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > To state the bleeding obvious, it arises because on day 1 Debian > decided to do the builds in the original source tree, then tries to > recover the original source at the end by running "debian/rules clean". > When I moved from rpm

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi Mattia, Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2017-01-09 11:27:30) > On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:05:37PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Mattia, please see below for a pbuilder-specific question. > > Thanks for CCing me; I'm not following this thread anymore (as it > surpassed the threshold above which I

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 21:01 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-01-09 18:33:51) > > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > > Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to > > &g

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 17:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > All of this applying and unapplying of patches around build > operations is complete madness if you ask me - but I don't see a > better approach given the constraints.  dgit sometimes ends up doing > this (and moans about it), which is even ma

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-01-09 18:33:51) > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to > > automatically determine whether the user would like their tree to be > &g

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:25:44PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > My first worry is that pseudomerges are weird. In fact, I've never > > seen them outside of weird Debian git workflows :)

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to > automatically determine whether the user would like their tree to be > patches applied or unapplied. This would have to be some kind of (perha

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > I take it that only the maintainer is meant to look at the > merging-baseline, and everyone else looks at the interchange view. Anyone wanting to look at the patch stack can look at the interchange view. git bl

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:05:37PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Mattia, please see below for a pbuilder-specific question. Thanks for CCing me; I'm not following this thread anymore (as it surpassed the threshold above which I stop to dedicate my time to it), so please CC me if you need my inp

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello Ian, On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:29:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > Could you explain in general terms the difference between the > > interchange and packaging-only branches > > See m

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > I'm not very familiar with pbuilder. Looking at the man page it seems that > pbuilder itself exclusively accepts a source package .dsc and for building a > source directory one needs the pdebuild wrapper? Right. > If that is the case, the

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi all, Mattia, please see below for a pbuilder-specific question. Quoting James Clarke (2017-01-08 12:14:07) > This turns out to be true. Working in a patches-applied tree: > > $ dpkg-source --before-build . > $ dpkg-source -b . > $ dpkg-source --after-build . > > leaves the patche

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:53:51AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2017-01-07 07:12:59) > > I manage my patches using quilt. I would really prefer if sbuild et al. > > would revert the patches after building by default, but that's life. I > > respect that other people have

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 12:36 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Josh, > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:25:29AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Currently working on some improvements in that direction, to separate > > repository format from workflow. > > I'd like to encourage you to read my dgit-maint

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi, Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2017-01-07 07:12:59) > I manage my patches using quilt. I would really prefer if sbuild et al. > would revert the patches after building by default, but that's life. I > respect that other people have other views. you could always file a wishlist bug against sbuild wi

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Le 07/01/2017 à 22:10, Nikolaus Rath a écrit : > On Jan 07 2017, Thibaut Paumard wrote: >> Well, just to say, I'm personally quite happy with '3.0 (quilt)'. I try >> to maintain all my packages in git in unapplied state, because in my >> opinion this is the sensible thing to do. When I do a >> g

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 07 2017, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Well, just to say, I'm personally quite happy with '3.0 (quilt)'. I try > to maintain all my packages in git in unapplied state, because in my > opinion this is the sensible thing to do. When I do a > git diff upstream master > I want to see only debian/

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Thibaut Paumard writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > I'm not interested at the moment in dgit or other wrappers because > 1- they seem to me to add complexity to the process; > 2- I prefer to understand what I'm doing. Those are good reasons. (

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Le 06/01/2017 à 16:37, Ian Jackson a écrit : > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format > problems"): >> On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], Ian Jackson wrote: >>> Looked at another way, it is trying to be a version control system, >>&

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:37:48 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I think only a minority of people are actually using quilt on > debian/patches. I have a different impression (but no proof either of course). Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > ! NMUer's HEAD was here when they said `dgit push'. > Rebase branch launderer turns each ! into an > equivalent *. I mean it turns each % into an equivalent *

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], Ian Jackson wrote: > > Looked at another way, it is trying to be a version control system, > > layered on top of the Debian archive. But it is only abo

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > Could you explain in general terms the difference between the > interchange and packaging-only branches See modified diagram below. Are the annotations I have added (and the name change) any help ? > Does

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi Sean, On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 01:05:54PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:10:16AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > https://sources.debian.net/patches/ goes in that direction. AFAIK it > > might not be complete and TTBOMK it hasn't been announced widely but > > it exists

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello Ian, On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:08:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > git-dpm sort of does this. I have been experimenting with and > blundering towards another approach, which is closer to raw git. > > Something like this: > >--/--A-/---B3---/--> interchange view >

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello, On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 06:48:10PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > I'd think that anything that's relevant for upstream development is > forwarded to upstream by the maintainer in whatever format upstream > prefers. This requires extra time, but I would be surprised to hear if > there are mai

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello gregor, On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:10:16AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 20:15:10 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:54:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Well, if we had one more thing: a patches.debian.org service that would > > > show the

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], Ian Jackson wrote: > > Looked at another way, it is trying to be a version control system, > > layered on top of the Debian archive. But it is only about a quarter > > of a VCS. There are

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: >> I have had to sort out the mess when the Debian package upload >> did not match my git tree because another maintainer didn't correctly >> merge in my changes. > > I don't understand... how does a Debian package upload affect any of the > work on your git-dpm tree? I can

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: > Vincent Bernat writes: > >> There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to >> use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it produces a messy history when >> you are working on your patches and I often run into problems with >> .debian/.git-dpm

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Brian May writes: > No, my understanding that is git pq is something quite different, and > does not maintain the history of changes in git - except by commiting > the debian/patches/* files. It is a while since I looked at this in > depth however. That's correct. gbp pq is equivalent to mainta

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat writes: > There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to > use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it produces a messy history when > you are working on your patches and I often run into problems with > .debian/.git-dpm file it maintains (import a new upstream

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 04 2017, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 4 janvier 2017 09:47 -0800, Nikolaus Rath  : > >> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that >> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of >> problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions I

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], Ian Jackson wrote: > Looked at another way, it is trying to be a version control system, > layered on top of the Debian archive. But it is only about a quarter > of a VCS. There are no formal interfaces to do proper VCS operations. > If there is a formal interface,

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 4 janvier 2017 09:47 -0800, Nikolaus Rath  : > It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that > externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of > problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions I can think of > require one or more thing

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 04 2017, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman  : > It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions I can t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Joking aside, the attempts I've seen at managing SRPMs in a version > control system have either not tracked upstream source at all (Fedora), or > invented a layout that is actually a lot like Debian's but with packaging/ > instead

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 at 13:59:26 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > But I am not sure if a package structure like > > > > mypkg/upstream/* > > mypkg/debian/* > > mypkg/patches/* (?) > > > > would have any *practical* benefits over the current situation

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On January 4, 2017 6:23:23 AM EST, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >Quoting Vincent Bernat (2017-01-04 08:12:08) >> ❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman > : >> >> >>> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out >that >> >>> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series so

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > Even if we never used tarballs, and instead our unit of operation was the > upstream Git repository plus Debian branches, I would maintain a rebased > branch of Debian changes to upstream I think this is d

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Quoting Vincent Bernat (2017-01-04 08:12:08) > ❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman  : > > >>> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that > >>> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of > >>> problems surprisingly well. All the other solutio

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman  : >>> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that >>> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of >>> problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions I can think of >>> require one or more things I don'

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > But I am not sure if a package structure like > > mypkg/upstream/* > mypkg/debian/* > mypkg/patches/* (?) > > would have any *practical* benefits over the current situation, because > this transformation could be trivially automated in either

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 04 2017, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the >> point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats. > > I've been reading this thread and keep being reminded of our > discussio

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On January 3, 2017 10:22:22 PM EST, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: >> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that >> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of >these >> problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 18:37 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Even if we never used tarballs, and instead our unit of operation was > the upstream Git repository plus Debian branches, I would maintain a > rebased branch of Debian changes to upstream This is not a novel requirement. Most projects I've

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats. I've been reading this thread and keep being reminded of our discussion on #debian-dpkg a while ago. I think most

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: > Are there really upstreams that do that? I'd expect that the primary > consumer of Debian patches are other distributions, downstreams, and > users. > I'd think that anything that's relevant for upstream development is > forwarded to upstream by the maintainer in whatever

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that > externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of these > problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions I can think of > require one or more things I don't really want t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Well, if we had one more thing: a patches.debian.org service that would > show the git-debcherry-extracted patches against upstream. I really like > being able to just point upstream at all the patches relevant to them that > Debian has applie

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:39:33AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> > >> > git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian' >> >> Yes, but that's not as useful as what git-debcherry produces. >> >> For example, if you get a merge conflict

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

gregor herrmann writes: > Personally I have the feeling that lots of these discussions and also > the creation of new tools (git-dpm, git-pq, git-debcherry, dgit) are > just workarounds for the actual problem: Many of us would like to work > in and with git but the whole infrastructure still revo

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 20:15:10 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:54:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Well, if we had one more thing: a patches.debian.org service that would > > show the git-debcherry-extracted patches against upstream. I really like > > being able to just p

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 01:09:35PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 02 2017, 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 t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello, On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:39:33AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > > > git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian' > > Yes, but that's not as useful as what git-debcherry produces. > > For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above > incantation will lis

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton 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 so

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Nikolaus Rath writes: > >> For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above >> incantation will list two commits: the original debian commit and the >> merge commit. git-debcherry, on the other hand, will synthesize one >> patch, consisting o

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: > For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above > incantation will list two commits: the original debian commit and the > merge commit. git-debcherry, on the other hand, will synthesize one > patch, consisting of the original Debian commit, but modified t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton 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 random

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > 2 janvier 2017 01:45 -0800, Josh Triplett  : > > Personally, when I want to patch a random package, I run "debcheckout > > package-name", make changes, commit them, format-patch, [...] Re

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover writes ("Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes > people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one > of these apply t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat wrote... > For me, this is a great improvement over the previous format with > several different patching systems (quilt, dpatch, nothing, > custom). Now, most packages are using quilt, one less thing to > understand. That's for sure, and I doubt there are many people who consider

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: > On Jan 02 2017, 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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 02 2017, 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 up

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Josh Triplett writes: > That page already captures my primary issue with "3.0 (quilt)": it acts > like a version control system, and interacts poorly with other version > control systems. I think it's better to think of it as a portable interchange format for version control systems than a versi

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Dear Josh, On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:25:29AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Currently working on some improvements in that direction, to separate > repository format from workflow. I'd like to encourage you to read my dgit-maint-merge(7) workflow tutorial. Perhaps the work to which you refer cou

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat wrote: > > Personally, when I want to patch a random package, I run "debcheckout > > package-name", make changes, commit them, format-patch, and mail that > > to > > the BTS. If the package doesn't have an appropriate Vcs field for > > debcheckout to read, I instead run "apt source

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 2 janvier 2017 01:45 -0800, Josh Triplett  : >> > I don't want the source format to care about details like those. >> > If people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their >> > packages, they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care >> > about that. The source format shou

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 2 janvier 2017 00:57 -0800, Josh Triplett : > > > I don't want the source format to care about details like those. If > > people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their > > packages, > > they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care about that. T

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 2 janvier 2017 00:57 -0800, Josh Triplett  : > I don't want the source format to care about details like those. If > people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their packages, > they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care about that. The > source format should not atte

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes > people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one > of these apply that would be helpful). All these including o

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes > people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one > of these apply that

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover wrote... > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, which I think is > > pretty sad and inappropriate. Well, bringing up more old stories, even if 'The secret plan behind the "3.0 (quilt)" Debian source' was

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > > (I'm not using because > > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) > > TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, w

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > (I'm not using because > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, which I think is pretty sad and inappropriate. Best, -Nikolaus --