On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:42 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: >On 09/22/2011 05:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> It would certainly be more useful to have ubuntu:gtimelog share history >> with lp:gtimelog, but I think it would be best in that case if >> ubuntu:gtimelog only version controlled the debian directory. >Why would this be better than actually having all of the history there? It >seems to me like that would mostly just add extra overhead because you have >to fetch two branches rather than one. Right, I was thinking something like svn:externals where you wouldn't have an explicit second checkout, it would just happen automatically. But you're right that this still makes things more complicated, and I guess the effect of sharing history and having the full source would be the same, without the extra complication. >I use "bzr merge-upstream" to merge new upstream versions into the packaging >branches of bzr, samba4, heimdal and various other projects . See for >example the ubuntu:bzr branch (although that seems to be out of date at the >moment). Yep, I do the same thing. The nice thing there is that I don't have to worry about packaging unreleased changes. The downside is that I have to do an upstream release to test some new packaged version. And that there's no shared history. :) >The practice of versioning debian/ only mostly seems to happen if the VCS >used is SVN. Even then, there are a couple of teams that import the full >upstream source into SVN. > >I think I've seen more Git repositories that include the full source than >repositories that don't. I just want to blink my eyes, click my heels, wave my wand and make those git repositories speak bzr instead. :) -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
