Daniel Shahaf writes ("Re: Bug#851897: dgit: please have generated source
packages contain standard patch series"):
> The language "automatically generated representation" raises the
> "inferior representation" v. "best possible representation in the
> format" question again. (mentioned in my previous email)
Yes.
> How about:
>
> The Debian packaging of foo is maintained in git,
> using the merging workflow described in dgit-maint-merge(7).
> That workflow does not have a patch queue that can be represented
> as a quilt series.
> A detailed breakdown of the Debian changes is available from…
> .
> An automatically generated representation of the same changes follows.
>
> [lines 3-4 are new]
>
> A bit verbose, maybe, but hopefully unambiguous.
This is a good direction. I now have:
The Debian packaging of foo is maintained in git,
using the merging workflow described in dgit-maint-merge(7).
| There isn't a patch queue that can be represented as a quilt series.
A detailed breakdown of the changes is available from their
canonical representation -
git commits in the packaging repository.
For example, to see the changes made by the Debian maintainer in the
first upload of upstream version 1.2.3, you could use:
=over 4
% git clone https://git.dgit.debian.org/
% cd foo
% git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian'
=back
See dgit-maint-merge(7) for more information.
(If you have dgit, use dgit clone foo,
rather than plain git clone.)
| A single combined diff, containing all the changes, follows.
(nontrivial changes marked with |)
> Editorials: s/break down/breakdown/; s/-/:/ (as Sean had).
I have fixed the former. I feel `:' would need to introduce more of a
sentence; I don't feel it can introduce a single noun phrase in this
way.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
