[Pkg-samba-maint] Use git-buildpackage for Samba 4

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Am Mittwoch, den 09.01.2008, 09:49 -0800 schrieb Steve Langasek: 
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:15:28PM +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > If so, I don't have any particular objections on my own behalf, I only worry
> > > about whether switching to git will have an impact on collaborative
> > > maintenance of the Debian package in the long term (i.e., once printing is
> > > done and we want to start switching everything from samba 3).
> > This is still some time away (at least a year I think). Is there
> > anything that makes git harder to use for collaborative maintenance
> > compared to Subversion?
> 
> The fact that svn is part of the existing knowledge set for a number of
> developers, and git isn't (yet).  I also have yet to find a good
> best-practices guide for git that makes me comfortable that I know what's
> what with this tool.  Jerry's wiki page is a good start in the case of Samba
> (http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Using_Git_for_Samba_Development), but on
> the whole it feels to me like git gives rather a few too many options.
> 
> Some people describe git as "simple", but this seems to mean only "the
> design and implementation is simple and you're responsible for sorting out
> the higher-level stuff in wetware because the tools are going to give you no
> more structure than 'rm' does".
Being a bzr developer, I'm not much of a fan of git either... My reason
for proposing git here is to be consistent with upstream - it makes
merging from the upstream branch a lot easier.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer at jabber.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20080119/cc901032/attachment.pgp