Hi! On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:18:14PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > Although the above is quite a harsh judgement, I'd like to note, that tg > > has > > had its merrit to promote one right idea: Patches should be managed in the > > form of branches by the means of the underlying VCS and not as simple > > patchfiles. > > No, distros shouldnt maintain patches at all, instead use their > own maintenance-branches, which will be rebased to upstream on > new releases.
The reason to ponder all this is precisely to _avoid_ rebasing, which brings many problems - it's PITA to maintain rebasing branches in a distributed manner, there is no public history record of the rebases, etc. The alternate solutions try to maintain custom modifications in a manner that is (i) incremental, so that there is full history record of changes and it is possible to maintain the branch in a distributed manner (ii) maitainable, so that at any time it is possible to identify and isolate each self-contained modification (a.k.a. "patch") of the vanilla package, for review and upstream submission purposes under the presumption that these are desirable properties. With simple "maintenance-branches" approach, you have to rebase and abandon (i), or merge repeatedly and give up (ii). Petr "Pasky" Baudis _______________________________________________ vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list vcs-pkg-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/vcs-pkg-discuss