Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >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.
Right. What I really want (and what our docs asked for at one point) is a packaging diff (debian dir) and a pointer to the upstream tarball. I said the branch would be useless to me, because I'd have to extract out the packaging diff and redo the merge to make sense of it. BTW, I didn't come to my perspective on UDD without trying it.I gave it a real go, but it just didn't work for me. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
