interesting discussion on git mailing list

[Damyan Ivanov]

-=| martin f krafft, Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:03:59 +0200 |=-
> Why do you want to maintain patches separate in quilt/guilt and no
> in git branches? I am not questioning your approach, just wondering
> about your motivation.

I guess I don't yet feel that comfortable in git waters and
perhaps can't get the right aptitude to implement this. I'm afraid I'll
get lost if I have too many branches. In firebird2.0 package, I have
~30 patches.

Here's what I feel I need about the "patch" system I'd use:

a) patches are easily sent upstream
b) patches are easily disabled/enabled
c) patches are ordered (this is obvious, but still)
d) patches can be managed somehow
e) patches are reviewable on source-package level

Last two points perhaps need some explanation

d) means I have some analogous command to "quilt push $patchname" that
gets me a tree with all patches up to $patchname applied

e) means that anyone can see the separate patches after "apt-get source
$package". I am confused whether guilt gives this.

Hm, on the other hand, QA and security teams prefer that no patch
systems are used (or at least no *new* ones are invented) so that last
e) is perhaps not so important. Still I believe it makes it more
obvious what and why is changed. And QA/seciruty concerns are avoided
if the source is distributed patched (with patches themselves also
present in the .diff). I must admit I am not there yet with quilt.
-- 
dam            JabberID: dam at jabber.minus273.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/vcs-pkg-discuss/attachments/20070710/1e968aaa/attachment.pgp