1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
|
From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:08:57 +0000
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"):
> Even if we never used tarballs, and instead our unit of operation was the
> upstream Git repository plus Debian branches, I would maintain a rebased
> branch of Debian changes to upstream
I think this is definitely the right thing for many packages.
I don't think this depends on the interchange format representing the
changes as patches rather than commits. At a technical level, they
represent roughly the same information and it is possible to
interconvert. However:
* There are many changes that patches cannot represent.
* git (working with a rebasing branch) is a much more powerful tool
for editing a patch series than quilt or diff/patch or emacs
(working with a series of patches as files). Ie, patches are a
poor editing format. Consequently most people actually gateway to
git at the first opportunity, and out again for export.
* Few people outside Debian work with quilt stacks any more.
All of these things mean that patches are a really poor interchange
format.
The only difficulty is this one:
> This is actually, in a way, *harder* if we were using pure Git, since if I
> have a rebased branch of Debian changes on top of upstream, and I need a
> place to integrate that with Debian packaging, what does that
> debian/master branch look like? I don't really want it to be a constantly
> rebased branch; I want it to be a conventional branch. But I want to keep
> merging the changes against upstream into it (but not maintain them on
> that branch, only maintain the Debian packaging files on that branch).
My preferred answer is that it is a constantly rebasing branch topped
with a series of pseudomerges to make it fast-forwarding.
git-dpm sort of does this. I have been experimenting with and
blundering towards another approach, which is closer to raw git.
Something like this:
------/--A-----/---B3---/--> interchange view
/ / /
/ / 3
/ / /
2 2 2
/ / /
1 1 1
/ / /
---p-----p--A----p---B---> `packaging-only' branch
/ / /
--#-----#-------#-----> upstream
Key: 1,2,3 commits touching upstream files
A,B commits touching debian/ only
B3 mixed commit (eg made by an NMUer)
# upstream releases
-p- special merge, takes contents of debian/
/ from the previous `packaging only'
commit and rest from upstream
-/- pseudomerge; contents are identical to
/ parent lower on diagram.
Looking from the tip of the interchange view, it is I think always
possible to classify these commits appropriately: pseudomerges are
fairly obvious (if all three trees are identical, we descend to the
parent with the most recent commit date), and the `p' special merge is
the only non-pseudo merge and has a special form.
So it would be possible to write a `git-debian-rebase' tool which
would take (for example) B3, above, and be able to perform functions
like:
* Strip pseudomerges: Rewrite the current branch so it contains no
pseudomerges, turning ...B3 into ...p-A-1-2-B3. (This should make
a note, in your .git/ somewhere, of the latest pseudomerge to be
deleted.)
* Cleanup branch: Reorganise the current branch so that the debian/
changes come first, turning -p-A-1-2-B3 into ...p-A-B-1-2.
* New upstream rebase: Start rebasing onto a new upstream version,
turning ...#...p-A-B-1-2 into ...#'...p'-1-2. This would be a
wrapper around git-rebase, which prepares p' and then tries to
rebase 1 2 onto p'. So if you ask for an interactive rebase p'
doesn't appear in your commit list.
Note that the rebasing of p into p' cannot fail because p' simply
copies debian/ from B and and everything else from #'. (Rebasing A
and B is undesirable. We want the debian/ files to be non-rebasing
so we can `git log' and get the packaging history.)
* Record pseudomerge. This is like "committing" your patch queue.
The LH parent is taken from the previous strip pseudomerge. (We
should probably check that this is consistent with what we see in
debian/changelog, but that is not a sufficient check.)
Maybe some of these operations should automatically edit
debian/changelog.
The only thing that this can't easily do is permit nonlinear (ie,
merging) history on the `packaging-only' branch, because upstream
might contain debian/ files too, so it is not possible to distinguish
a merge of two `packaging-only' branches from the special merge `p'.
(Indeed I since upstream might copy debian/ from us, I think it is not
easy to reliably distinguish the two parents of a `p'. In the most
exciting edge case, upstream might `git merge' a previous instance of
our interchange view, but I think even then everything still works.)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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.
From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 15:29:38 +0000
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"):
> Could you explain in general terms the difference between the
> interchange and packaging-only branches
See modified diagram below. Are the annotations I have added (and the
name change) any help ?
> Does the packaging-only branch contain debian/ alone?
No, it also contains a complete unmodified copy of the upstream code.
(Except that if upstream had a debian/ directory, it is completely
replaced.) Perhaps this is the wrong name. Let's try
`merging-baseline'
For `3.0 (quilt)' the merging-baseline branch contains roughly what
you would get if you untarred the origs and the debian.tar.gz, and
then deleted all the patches without applying them.
Not shown on the diagram is the commit `add patch queue to
debian/patches', which would be needed for `3.0 (quilt)'. This is
because the diagram is in terms of a sane source format, not `3.0
(quilt)'. For use with quilty sources, there would be such a commit
(probably dgit-generated) on top of the actual upstream change
commits:
------/--A!----/--B3!--%--/--> interchange view
/ / / with debian/ directory
% % % all upstream changes applied
/ / / 3.0 (quilt) has debian/patches
/ 2* 2*
/ / /
2* 2 2
/ / /
1 1 1 `merging-baseline' branch
/ / / unmodified upstream code
---p-----p--A----p--B--C--> plus debian/ (but no debian/patches)
/ / /
--#-----#-------#-----> upstream
Key:
1,2,3 commits touching upstream files only
A,B,C commits touching debian/ only
B3 mixed commit (eg made by an NMUer)
# upstream releases
-p- special merge, takes contents of debian/ from the
/ previous `merging-baseline' commit and rest from upstream
-/- pseudomerge; contents are identical to
/ parent lower on diagram.
% dgit-generated commit of debian/patches.
`3.0 (quilt)' only; dropped by rebase tool.
* Maintainer's HEAD was here while they were editing,
before they said they were done, at which point their
tools generated [% and] -/- commit[s] to convert to
the fast-forwarding interchange branch. (Maybe the
tooling is simply `dgit push'.)
! NMUer's HEAD was here when they said `dgit push'.
Rebase branch launderer turns each ! into an
equivalent *.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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.
|
