FTR, I answered most questions about "why not dgit?" in the thread I just moved to vcs-pkg-discuss only[1].
For some specific questions here: On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:31:31AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > dgit can work on Ubuntu too, in a readonly mode. (It would be nice to > make `dgit push' work on Ubuntu but that requires a suitable git > server, and some configration on the dgit client side.) A key difference with our system is that no infrastructure is required. It's distributed (-able), with no special git remote. > The --skip-patches is a vital difference. > Has the decision to use --skip-patches been definitively taken ? For now, to fulfill our use case, yes. In the general case, no, not at all. Probably the best place to enter into this would be in a reply to my fuller explanation of the reasons in [1]. > I would like to beg you to reconsider this, in the strongest possible > terms. --skip-patches generates a patches-unapplied tree. > > A patches-unapplied tree: Sorry, I missed reference to this list when I wrote [1]. I'll study these and consider how they related to my reasons later. > If you are making patches-unapplied trees I think you cannot possibly > be representing the quilt patch stack of a `3.0 (quilt)' source > package as a series of git commits. Correct. This has not been our goal. > Representing a `3.0 (quilt)' package that way is desirable, as it > means that `git blame' and `git log' can be used to see which patches > do what. In contrast, in our Ubuntu development workflow, what you mention is not a requirement, but what is a requirement is to use "git blame" and "git log" to see when the quilt patches applied were altered. We don't want to drill down as far as you are suggesting; instead, we want the information at one level removed. Robie
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature