On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >One concrete example where UDD shines and the non-UDD workflow is > >inadequate is for sponsoring of package merges. If someone hands me a > >branch that properly merges the new Debian version into the Ubuntu > >branch, I can review that with the standard bzr diff tools and ascertain > >that the sponsoree has done the merge correctly. If someone hands me a > >debdiff for a Debian merge, that's useless; I effectively have to do the > >merge myself as part of the review, and no time is saved.
I should clarify here that I meant a merge of a new upstream version packaged in Debian. For packaging-only merges, debdiffs work fine. > It only works better if you are using UDD. I agree that if your primary > workflow is UDD based, then UDD branches are better. If I get a branch > it's as useless for me as a debdiff is for you. When asked to sponsor > things that have a branch, I generally decline or ask for a debdiff. Your decision to boycott UDD doesn't make a UDD branch "useless". A debdiff for a merge of a new upstream package version actually *is* useless and is a waste of the sponsoree's time, for the stated reason that the "review" of such a debdiff involves re-doing the merge myself. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
