terminology git repo

[Ross Vandegrift]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 01:39:42PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I have just played a little bit around in terminology's git repo, trying
> to import 1.2.0. 

Cool, thanks - I had some work in progress for 1.2.0 as well, but didn't get
through the lz4 patch.  I applied that on my updated debian/sid branch and
pushed to salsa.  I haven't had a chance to test yet.

> debian/README.source has some instructions but critical pieces seem to
> be missing:

Yes, those instructions are not so good.  gbp has automation to replace it but
I failed to update the README.source in terminology.  d/gbp.conf now uses
merge-mode=replace, and importing a new version is just:

$ git fetch --tags upstream
$ gbp import-orig --uscan

README.source in efl & e17 have more info, but those could be improved too.
Sorry for causing a waste of some time.

> I am also wondering whether it is worth the effort. Sure it sounds nice
> to have a git repo that contains but upstream and Debian git history.
> But is it worth the effort? Is there real benefit over just importing
> the tarballs? (Personally I usually even go for a debian/-only repo.)

With the better gbp workflow, I think the effort is pretty small.  It's been
useful to have everything in one repo when we needed to cherry-pick unreleased
fixes.  Upstreaming patches has also been easy.  But both are fairly rare, so
if you think it's too much burden I'm open to simplifying.

Ross