Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On 01/04/2017 06:30 AM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > But I am not sure if a package structure like > > mypkg/upstream/* > mypkg/debian/* > mypkg/patches/* (?) > > would have any *practical* benefits over the current situation It would have the huge benefit that upstream .git* files would stay in the u

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi, On Sun, 01 Jan 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > (I'm not using because > > > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) > >

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:14:09AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 10 2017, Guido Günther wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > >> On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: > >> > Vincent Bernat writes: > >> > > >> >> There have been a lot of complaints about it

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 10 2017, Guido Günther wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: >> > Vincent Bernat writes: >> > >> >> There have been a lot of complaints about it. For me, it is a pain to >> >> use. Its integration with gbp is poor, it p

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: > > Vincent Bernat writes: > > > >> 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 wor

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Nikolaus Rath writes: > > > Are there really upstreams that do that? I'd expect that the primary > > consumer of Debian patches are other distributions, downstreams, and > > users. > > > I'd think that anything that's relevant for u

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 08:36:13AM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > To state the bleeding obvious, it arises because on day 1 Debian > decided to do the builds in the original source tree, then tries to > recover the original source at the end by running "debian/rules clean". > When I moved from rpm

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi Mattia, Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2017-01-09 11:27:30) > On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:05:37PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Mattia, please see below for a pbuilder-specific question. > > Thanks for CCing me; I'm not following this thread anymore (as it > surpassed the threshold above which I

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 21:01 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-01-09 18:33:51) > > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > > Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to > > &g

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 17:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > All of this applying and unapplying of patches around build > operations is complete madness if you ask me - but I don't see a > better approach given the constraints.  dgit sometimes ends up doing > this (and moans about it), which is even ma

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-01-09 18:33:51) > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to > > automatically determine whether the user would like their tree to be > &g

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:25:44PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > My first worry is that pseudomerges are weird. In fact, I've never > > seen them outside of weird Debian git workflows :)

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to > automatically determine whether the user would like their tree to be > patches applied or unapplied. This would have to be some kind of (perha

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > I take it that only the maintainer is meant to look at the > merging-baseline, and everyone else looks at the interchange view. Anyone wanting to look at the patch stack can look at the interchange view. git bl

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:05:37PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Mattia, please see below for a pbuilder-specific question. Thanks for CCing me; I'm not following this thread anymore (as it surpassed the threshold above which I stop to dedicate my time to it), so please CC me if you need my inp

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello Ian, On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:29:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > Could you explain in general terms the difference between the > > interchange and packaging-only branches > > See m

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > I'm not very familiar with pbuilder. Looking at the man page it seems that > pbuilder itself exclusively accepts a source package .dsc and for building a > source directory one needs the pdebuild wrapper? Right. > If that is the case, the

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi all, Mattia, please see below for a pbuilder-specific question. Quoting James Clarke (2017-01-08 12:14:07) > This turns out to be true. Working in a patches-applied tree: > > $ dpkg-source --before-build . > $ dpkg-source -b . > $ dpkg-source --after-build . > > leaves the patche

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:53:51AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2017-01-07 07:12:59) > > I manage my patches using quilt. I would really prefer if sbuild et al. > > would revert the patches after building by default, but that's life. I > > respect that other people have

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 12:36 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Josh, > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:25:29AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Currently working on some improvements in that direction, to separate > > repository format from workflow. > > I'd like to encourage you to read my dgit-maint

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi, Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2017-01-07 07:12:59) > I manage my patches using quilt. I would really prefer if sbuild et al. > would revert the patches after building by default, but that's life. I > respect that other people have other views. you could always file a wishlist bug against sbuild wi

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

are not quite happy (or quite unhappy?) with this format, but like often presumably people who *are* happy with the format will not speak up. I would not like the readers of the thread to come to the conclusion that the majority is unhappy with the format, because it's not a poll. My "

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 07 2017, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Well, just to say, I'm personally quite happy with '3.0 (quilt)'. I try > to maintain all my packages in git in unapplied state, because in my > opinion this is the sensible thing to do. When I do a > git diff upstream master > I want to see only debian/

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Thibaut Paumard writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > I'm not interested at the moment in dgit or other wrappers because > 1- they seem to me to add complexity to the process; > 2- I prefer to understand what I'm doing. Those are good reasons. (

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Le 06/01/2017 à 16:37, Ian Jackson a écrit : > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format > problems"): >> On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], Ian Jackson wrote: >>> Looked at another way, it is trying to be a version control system, >>&

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:37:48 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I think only a minority of people are actually using quilt on > debian/patches. I have a different impression (but no proof either of course). Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > ! NMUer's HEAD was here when they said `dgit push'. > Rebase branch launderer turns each ! into an > equivalent *. I mean it turns each % into an equivalent *

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], 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 abo

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > Could you explain in general terms the difference between the > interchange and packaging-only branches See modified diagram below. Are the annotations I have added (and the name change) any help ? > Does

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi Sean, On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 01:05:54PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:10:16AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > https://sources.debian.net/patches/ goes in that direction. AFAIK it > > might not be complete and TTBOMK it hasn't been announced widely but > > it exists

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello Ian, On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:08:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > git-dpm sort of does this. I have been experimenting with and > blundering towards another approach, which is closer to raw git. > > Something like this: > >--/--A-/---B3---/--> interchange view >

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello, On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 06:48:10PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > I'd think that anything that's relevant for upstream development is > forwarded to upstream by the maintainer in whatever format upstream > prefers. This requires extra time, but I would be surprised to hear if > there are mai

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello gregor, On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:10:16AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 20:15:10 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:54:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Well, if we had one more thing: a patches.debian.org service that would > > > show the

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], 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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: >> I have had to sort out the mess when the Debian package upload >> did not match my git tree because another maintainer didn't correctly >> merge in my changes. > > I don't understand... how does a Debian package upload affect any of the > work on your git-dpm tree? I can

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 05 2017, Brian May wrote: > Vincent Bernat writes: > >> 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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Brian May writes: > No, my understanding that is git pq is something quite different, and > does not maintain the history of changes in git - except by commiting > the debian/patches/* files. It is a while since I looked at this in > depth however. That's correct. gbp pq is equivalent to mainta

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat writes: > 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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 04 2017, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 4 janvier 2017 09:47 -0800, Nikolaus Rath  : > >> 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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On 2017-01-03 16:58:21 [+], 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,

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 4 janvier 2017 09:47 -0800, Nikolaus Rath  : > 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 thing

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 04 2017, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman  : > 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 t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Joking aside, the attempts I've seen at managing SRPMs in a version > control system have either not tracked upstream source at all (Fedora), or > invented a layout that is actually a lot like Debian's but with packaging/ > instead

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 at 13:59:26 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > But I am not sure if a package structure like > > > > mypkg/upstream/* > > mypkg/debian/* > > mypkg/patches/* (?) > > > > would have any *practical* benefits over the current situation

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On January 4, 2017 6:23:23 AM EST, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >Quoting Vincent Bernat (2017-01-04 08:12:08) >> ❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman > : >> >> >>> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out >that >> >>> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series so

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > Even if we never used tarballs, and instead our unit of operation was the > upstream Git repository plus Debian branches, I would maintain a rebased > branch of Debian changes to upstream I think this is d

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Quoting Vincent Bernat (2017-01-04 08:12:08) > ❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman  : > > >>> 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 solutio

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 4 janvier 2017 04:52 GMT, Scott Kitterman  : >>> 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'

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > But I am not sure if a package structure like > > mypkg/upstream/* > mypkg/debian/* > mypkg/patches/* (?) > > would have any *practical* benefits over the current situation, because > this transformation could be trivially automated in either

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 04 2017, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the >> point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats. > > I've been reading this thread and keep being reminded of our > discussio

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On January 3, 2017 10:22:22 PM EST, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: >> It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that >> externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of >these >> problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 18:37 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Even if we never used tarballs, and instead our unit of operation was > the upstream Git repository plus Debian branches, I would maintain a > rebased branch of Debian changes to upstream This is not a novel requirement. Most projects I've

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats. I've been reading this thread and keep being reminded of our discussion on #debian-dpkg a while ago. I think most

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: > Are there really upstreams that do that? I'd expect that the primary > consumer of Debian patches are other distributions, downstreams, and > users. > I'd think that anything that's relevant for upstream development is > forwarded to upstream by the maintainer in whatever

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > It's surprisingly awkward, and, at least for me, it turns out that > externalizing my rebased branch as a patch series solves many of these > problems surprisingly well. All the other solutions I can think of > require one or more things I don't really want t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Well, if we had one more thing: a patches.debian.org service that would > show the git-debcherry-extracted patches against upstream. I really like > being able to just point upstream at all the patches relevant to them that > Debian has applie

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:39:33AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> > >> > git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian' >> >> Yes, but that's not as useful as what git-debcherry produces. >> >> For example, if you get a merge conflict

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

gregor herrmann writes: > Personally I have the feeling that lots of these discussions and also > the creation of new tools (git-dpm, git-pq, git-debcherry, dgit) are > just workarounds for the actual problem: Many of us would like to work > in and with git but the whole infrastructure still revo

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 20:15:10 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:54:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Well, if we had one more thing: a patches.debian.org service that would > > show the git-debcherry-extracted patches against upstream. I really like > > being able to just p

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 01:09:35PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 02 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches, > > which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if someone was > > packaging in Git and just randomly commits t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello, On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:39:33AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > > > git log --oneline 1.2.3..debian/1.2.3-1 -- . ':!debian' > > Yes, but that's not as useful as what git-debcherry produces. > > For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above > incantation will lis

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Hello Russ, >> >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:29:24AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches, >>> which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if so

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Nikolaus Rath writes: > >> For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above >> incantation will list two commits: the original debian commit and the >> merge commit. git-debcherry, on the other hand, will synthesize one >> patch, consisting o

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: > For example, if you get a merge conflict when rebasing, the above > incantation will list two commits: the original debian commit and the > merge commit. git-debcherry, on the other hand, will synthesize one > patch, consisting of the original Debian commit, but modified t

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 03 2017, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Russ, > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:29:24AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches, >> which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if someone was >> packaging in Git and just random

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > 2 janvier 2017 01:45 -0800, Josh Triplett  : > > Personally, when I want to patch a random package, I run "debcheckout > > package-name", make changes, commit them, format-patch, [...] Re

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover writes ("Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes > people use them in anger and similar (if people would state wh

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hello Russ, On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:29:24AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches, > which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if someone was > packaging in Git and just randomly commits things directly to the > packaging

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat wrote... > For me, this is a great improvement over the previous format with > several different patching systems (quilt, dpatch, nothing, > custom). Now, most packages are using quilt, one less thing to > understand. That's for sure, and I doubt there are many people who consider

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Nikolaus Rath writes: > On Jan 02 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches, >> which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if someone was >> packaging in Git and just randomly commits things directly to the >> packaging branch

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 02 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Furthermore, it forces a rebased, clean representation of the patches, > which I for one hugely prefer to the mess that you get if someone was > packaging in Git and just randomly commits things directly to the > packaging branch intermixed with merges from up

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Josh Triplett writes: > That page already captures my primary issue with "3.0 (quilt)": it acts > like a version control system, and interacts poorly with other version > control systems. I think it's better to think of it as a portable interchange format for version control systems than a versi

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Dear Josh, On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:25:29AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Currently working on some improvements in that direction, to separate > repository format from workflow. I'd like to encourage you to read my dgit-maint-merge(7) workflow tutorial. Perhaps the work to which you refer cou

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat wrote: > > Personally, when I want to patch a random package, I run "debcheckout > > package-name", make changes, commit them, format-patch, and mail that > > to > > the BTS. If the package doesn't have an appropriate Vcs field for > > debcheckout to read, I instead run "apt source

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 2 janvier 2017 01:45 -0800, Josh Triplett  : >> > I don't want the source format to care about details like those. >> > If people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their >> > packages, they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care >> > about that. The source format shou

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 2 janvier 2017 00:57 -0800, Josh Triplett : > > > I don't want the source format to care about details like those. If > > people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their > > packages, > > they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care about that. T

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

❦ 2 janvier 2017 00:57 -0800, Josh Triplett  : > I don't want the source format to care about details like those. If > people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their packages, > they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care about that. The > source format should not atte

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes > people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one > of these apply that would be helpful). All these including o

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes > people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one > of these apply that

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover wrote... > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, which I think is > > pretty sad and inappropriate. Well, bringing up more old stories, even if 'The secret plan behind the "3.0 (quilt)" Debian source' was

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > > (I'm not using because > > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) > > TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, w

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > (I'm not using because > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, which I think is pretty sad and inappropriate. Best, -Nikolaus --

Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi! I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one of these apply that would be helpful). All these including objective and subjective