On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 01:11:59AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >... > IMO It doesn't make sense to separately maintain upstream and debian > branches just to handle a usually-empty difference. I have often > integrated NMUs in packages maintained this way and it works well. >...
I do not even care how you *maintain* it, I only care how you *export* it to Debian tarballs. >... > In such a situation (you're making an NMU with a package I maintain > this way), if you were to provide me with your git commits, that would > be welcome. >... There are no git commits. To avoid introducing regressions when the contents of the previously used sources in the Debian package and the contents of some git tree differs (this has happened), my only usage of git in NMUs is usually git-format-patch to export changes from upstream git to debian/patches/ nmudiff(1) sends the diff of my changes to the BTS, a maintainer can easily git-am this without me having to learn a gazillion different workflows. >... > > being able to split my own changes into separate patches makes it > > easier for other people to review my changes. > > That is true, if you need to make a substantial NMU. I'm sure most > maintainers will almost immediately import such a thing into git. >... The exact opposite is usually true: If there was a maintainer available who would do anything "almost immediately", there would not have been a need for an NMU. Usually the maintainer is either temporarily not available (happens to most of us) or MIA. > Ian. cu Adrian
