| 1 |
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 01:28 -0400, Jacob Godserv wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:13, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I've already explained the strategy behind the git repo (and not |
| 4 |
> > doing plaintext patches). Please refer to my paper, and my other |
| 5 |
> > mails posted recently on this list. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm not quite sure I understand your response here. He didn't ask for |
| 8 |
> you to explain the strategy. He asked for you to provide plain-text |
| 9 |
> patches. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I do understand the response, because part of the strategy mentioned |
| 12 |
*is* not to provide plain-text patches, but instead manage them, |
| 13 |
possibly jointly with other distributions, in a midstream repository. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
From the comments it looks like most developers (including me) won't be |
| 16 |
happy to switch to such an intermediate point at the moment. Perhaps the |
| 17 |
best approach would be to focus on packages with unmaintained or |
| 18 |
abandoned upstreams. For those packages there is a much more clear |
| 19 |
benefit of pooling together distribution patches. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Kind regards, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Hans |
Archives