Advantages of simpler patch management tools

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Remi Vanicat <remi.vanicat at gmail.com> [2007.10.12.1637 +0100]:
> I believe that the security team had tell us that they prefer at
> the opposite to have a diff.gz where all the patch are applied, so
> that they don't have to know which patch system we use to make
> a security fix on a package.

Can you provide a reference for this?

> I've the same concern. Can we ask to all contributor to our
> package to know how to use git ?

No, we can't; uh, we should not. But we should also not grind to
a halt in terms of innovation.

What we should consider is a high-level package maintenance tool,
which can shield the user from all the intricacies of the actual
tools in use but also allow their direct use.

I initially wanted to do this as part of my Ph.D. thesis, but then
decided not to. Still, I am interested in it, just not in an
academic setting.

You might want to have a look at and around page 19 of my (outdated)
proposal:
http://phd.martin-krafft.net/pdf/martin-f-krafft_phd-proposal_rev1.pdf

Doing a UI study and then a bottom-up approach to tool design could
be really cool. Will (Thompson), didn't I just see you subscribe?
Are you still interested in this?

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net at madduck
 
"there was no difference between the behavior of a god
 and the operations of pure chance..."
                              -- thomas pynchon, "gravity's rainbow"
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus at madduck.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/vcs-pkg-discuss/attachments/20071012/962b9613/attachment.pgp