Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves from tarballs to git
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:05:18 +0100
- From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves from tarballs to git
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves from tarballs to git"):
> On Mon 29 Apr 2019 at 02:12PM +01, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Are there any docs/advice on switching back and forth between these (or
> > at least switching between dgit-maint-merge and one of the patch
> > queueish ones)?
> > I'm not thinking anyone would flip regularly or anything, but just
> > knowing that flipping between them in something approaching a sane way
> > was possible at all would give some confidence to make a choice in the
> > here and now without getting too paralysed by the need to make a
> > decision.
That makes a lot of sense.
> > I think (but don't know) that the answer is that if your queue drops to
> > zero you have effectively flipped back to the dgit-maint-merge world.
> > If you find you want to go the other way then I'm less clear (except
> > perhaps that is `git debrebase convert-from-dgit-view` and then commit
> > to non-debian/ as usual?).
When your queue is empty, dgit-maint-merge and dgit-maint-gbp are
equivalent and dgit-maint-debrebase is "very close".
When you go from git-merge to separated-patches, you have to create
the additional information: the split of the delta into separate
patches with commit messages. However, I guess as the user you have
already figured that out and what you want is to know that you can
turn git-merge into
separated-patches but currently with one patch with
an autogenerated commit message
and then you would use normal git-fu to rework that into the desired
pretty patch series.
> Do you think it would be helpful to add sections to both the -merge and
> -debrebase manpages saying this stuff?
I think we should have a separate manpage. This kind of conversion
stuff is (hopefully) used rarely.
Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.