Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+0000], Ian Jackson wrote: > > Looked at another way, it is trying to be a version control system, > > layered on top of the Debian archive. But it is only about a quarter > > of a VCS. There are no formal interfaces to do proper VCS operations. > > If there is a formal interface, it is quilt(1) (which is itself very > > poor. NB that is not quilt's fault: quilt inevitably has a hard job > > because can't make enough assumptions). > > there quilt push, pop and header which seems enough.
Well, it seems you don't really think so :-), because: > I usually have git-dpm which creates the quilt series and I try to > keep patches documented. So you are using git operations to manipulate your patch stack. git-dpm is one of the tools we have which lets you do that. > > I think if we want to be storing patch queues we should be doing so in > > a real version control system. Indeed, most people are doing that. > > For now many people are using `3.0 (quilt)' as an interchange format, > > but ideally we would switch to a useable git workflow that did a > > similar thing, and then we could use git as our history interchange > > format. > > I read this a few times in this thread that people want the patches in a > VCS. I never saw this a missing feature or requirement on my side. ... > I can't think of an example where having a patch history somewhere else > than within the patch itself is useful. My thinking is probably limited > by my workflow :) Would you have an example where and how this could be > usefull? You have misunderstood, I think. I don't mean (and I think most other people don't mean) that they want the history _of_ a patch. That is, we aren't saying we want to look at the output of `git blame debian/patches/01-sponge.patch'. Rather, we think manipulating a stack of patches is much easier if one converts the patches to a git branch, with each patch becoming a commit (using a tool morally equivalent to git-am, such as gbp pq import). Naturally that doesn't end up recording a history _of_ the patches, because the patches _become_ `the history'. Then one manipulates the patches with git-rebase (or similar tools), git-commit, git-cherry-pick, etc. Finally, when doing an upload, one converts the git branch back into patches (with a tool morally equivalent to git-format-patch). I think only a minority of people are actually using quilt on debian/patches. Regards, 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.