Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 à 08:18 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : >>> I agree. dpkg-dev should not be depending on any VCS and it should not >>> promote any particular VCS either. I know that git is the new black (oh, >>> wait, that was something else), but I personally don't like it. And I >>> especially dislike how so many git lovers are trying to push it onto >>> others, while there are perfectly good reason (not applicable to all >>> teams or projects of course) not to use git but some other VCS (be it >>> distributed or not. >> It was an example. I have never said that dpkg-dev would support only one >> VCS. > > Supporting several ones would be even worse. > > What’s the point in standardizing over a common and flexible package > format if it cannot be used with all other tools? >
Hi I do admit I have not completely figured out how it would work and how it would help us. However, this is exactly why I am not ready to discard the idea yet. That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of existing format. That would probably also increase the adoption rate, since existing tools would work with those formats. ~Niels I reserve the right to change my opinion on this if the implementation of the VCS-based source format is awesome enough.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
