[pkg-otr-team] gbp vs. 1.0 source format

[intrigeri]

Hi,

Antoine Beaupré wrote (23 Feb 2014 02:34:09 GMT) :
> What about what I suggested in that other mail: instead of having one
> patch file in debian/patches/foo for each change, we could have a foo
> branch for each change?

FWIW, I've done this for a while, years ago, for a private package,
and was very happy with it. But I never dared doing the same for
a public repo.

> And we don't need to merge or rebase the foo branch with master! As with
> a patch, we can either leave it like that (but of course merge it in
> debian) or rebase it.

> What's wrong with rebasing it anyways? :) Yes, I know that it will
> create merge commits if people pull that branch, but how often would
> that branch be pulled itself? If it's part of the workflow that those
> topic branches can be rebased at will, then we can just make them so...

> This could potentially provide a solution.

Given how few packages we're handling, and given each such topic
branch would be about *one* particular fix, I think the situation when
two people work independently on the same topic branch, resulting in
2 different rewritten histories, and painful conflicts when pushing to
our shared repo, is quite unlikely to happen. So, I think this could
be one of these (rare) cases when rewriting history is actually not
so crazy.

Rebasing such a topic branch on top of the new upstream tag is
possibly the easiest way to notice if the commits we had in that
branch have been merged upstream, and if not, to submit an updated
patch upstream :)

I see only one potential problem with this approach: so, let's say we
rebase such a topic branch on top of the new upstream tag. Then, we
want to merge it into the debian branch again, right? So now, the
debian branch has multiple times the commits from that topic branch.
Purists will call this ugly, but I'm unsure what problem it would
cause in practice. Ideas?

> PS: I can't believe this problem wasn't solved in the git world, this
> seems like a typical problem to resolve: "what patches I made were not
> merged upstream?"

+1

Cheers,
-- 
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc