On January 4, 2017 6:23:23 AM EST, Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: >Quoting Vincent Bernat (2017-01-04 08:12:08) >> ❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman ><deb...@kitterman.com> : >> >> >>> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out >that >> >>> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of >> >>> problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions I can think >of >> >>> require one or more things I don't really want to do: rebase the >> >>> debian/master branch, not be able to run dpkg-buildpackage from >the >> >>> debian/master branch easily, or require that dpkg-buildpackage do >> >>> more mucking about with source control than I want it to. >> >> >> >>I believe the git-dpm approach would give you everything you want. >The >> >>explanation on http://git-dpm.alioth.debian.org/ is pretty good. >> >> >> >>I personally think that technically git-dpm's approach is the best >- >> >>but >> >>unfortunately the program itself is effectively unmaintained and >> >>apparently/consequently not used by many people. >> > >> > The Debian Python Modules Team (DPMT) has about 1,000 packages with >> > git-dpm repositories. While it took a bit of getting used to and >> > there have been a few problems, overall I think it's worked very >well. >> > It's biggest problem is the lack of a maintainer. >> >> There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to >> use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it produces a messy history >when >> you are working on your patches and I often run into problems with >> .debian/.git-dpm file it maintains (import a new upstream, make some >> changes, notice that somebody else also pushed a change, pull >--rebase, >> everything is broken). Since we started using it, we opened a lot of >bug >> reports and not a single one of them has been fixed. I think that >nobody >> wants to work on it because it is an extremely fragile tool and the >> first one to try to fix it will inherit of all the problems to solve. >> >> Isn't "gbp pq" a correct execution of the same principles? >> -- >> Make your program read from top to bottom. >> - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) > >Do _any_ of the systems reliably handle a "git rebase" involving a >merge >of new upstream release? In my experience gbp also fails that.
My experience with git-dpm, including with packages that have stacked patches/commits, is that it's pretty reliable, although not perfect. In the end, most, if not all the problems I've had turned out to be pilot error. Scott K