Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#852090: Bug#851897: dgit: please have generated source packages contain standard patch series"): > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 06:21:04PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I suggest adding this part... > > > > +to facilitate > > +reviewing/upstreaming/dropping > > +individual pieces. > > > > ... because I agreed with Daniel's point about rationales. > > I would still prefer not to include this.
I don't feel strongly about this so I'm going to defer to Sean, whose original work this manpage is. > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 08:42:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I now have: > > > > The Debian packaging of foo is maintained in git, > > using the merging workflow described in dgit-maint-merge(7). > > | There isn't a patch queue that can be represented as a quilt series. > > > > A detailed breakdown of the changes is available from their > > s/the changes/the Debian delta/ > > Thanks to the removal of the "automatically generated" sentence, "the > changes" has lost its referent. And since we use "changes" in the next > paragraph, a "delta" here reads better. It's the header of a patch in debian/patches/. What "the changes" refers to is surely obvious. Particularly from the previous sentence which talks about the lack of a quilt series. (Also "the Debian delta" is wrong if the same patch header is found in a source packge for a derivative. The rest of the text is less helpful too - mentioning Debian specific urls - but that's not as easy to sort out.) > > | A single combined diff, containing all the changes, follows. > > Consider dropping one of either > > > using the merging workflow described in dgit-maint-merge(7). > > or > > > See dgit-maint-merge(7) for more information. > > as we don't need two references to the manpage. I would suggest > dropping the latter. Yes, good point. Done. 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.