On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:16:40PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:37:08 +0200
> Adam Borowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to
> > use both it and a modern one, and when someone tries,
>
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but quilt isn't a VCS at all. It's a patch
> queue management system, and it does its job well. And, by the way, git
> can't do it better at the moment as guilt seems to be dead, and stgit
> is buggy (mq in mercurial is better than quilt, but we speak of git
> atm).
What would you need guilt or stgit for? Various invocations of git-rebase
can already do all of that. -i in particular can do most of that in an
user-friendly way.
> Keeping patches in git makes thing less transparent and more
> complicated. You have to inspect all the history just to find out what
> changes did maintainer do to the original source.
I'm sorry but I fail to see any core differences between quilt and a series
of patches rebased on top of the latest upstream tag. Except that git's
porcelain has better tools to do that -- just recall recent complains about
unfuzzying patches. Git will do a 3-way merge during rebasing, which is
more powerful than just copying a patch over as it has more context
(especially, old context vs new context) to work with.
A rebased series is just one way to work with git, but it alone can do
everything quilt can.
> And, of course, you need to have a clone of the repo.
A semi-shallow clone of [upstream_tag .. HEAD] ships exactly as much as
tarball + quilt series.
--
“This is gonna be as easy as cheating on an ethics exam!”
-Cerise Brightmoon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature