Trent W. Buck wrote: > Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva <mar...@holoscopio.com> writes: > >> I think a big repo is good for making the same changes in a lot of >> packages. If the packages look the same, or almost the same, most of >> the changes we do to one of the packages will be neeeded to do to the >> another. Then, we would end up with the same packages, with the same >> body and description in a lot of different repos. > > If you have a debian/control.in, for example, which is the same for all > Haskell libraries, this could be done in Darcs without needing a single > monolithic repository, simply by pulling patches to debian/control.in > into all the per-package repos. AIUI Mercurial and Git approximate this > as well (transplant, rebase?), but they do so by changing the patches' > identity (i.e. it's hash/checksum)... which makes me worry about the > implications of doing so on a long-term basis.
I worried about that to, moving to git. I have several things like this: an sgml-common directory that I use in every package that has manpages, and the like. A git merge commit is simply a commit with two parents. The sha1 of both parents is recorded. It is a stable long-term strategy and it works. I do not recommend rebase for anything this group is doing. -- John > >> It'd be easier to forget a package this way. > > Granted. > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-haskell-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
