MOTU Application

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday 05 October 2007 17:11, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:13:37 +0200
>
> Stefan Potyra <sistpoty at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> > > I was talking about the differences in the reviewing process between
> > > bzr, debdiff and revu. Of course if you do collaborative maintaining
> > > you must use a single source.
> >
> > sorry, but I didn't get your answer about reviewing (for sponsoring
> > new/existing packages) really, and that's what my initial question was
> > about. So I'd like to ask you again, what part of the process of
> > reviewing packages with bzr you think is superiour compared to REVU or
> > using debdiffs. Maybe you could give a sample what steps you are
> > performing when reviewing a package via bzr highlighting what you think
> > is particularly better for each one, so that I can understand your answer
> > better ;).
>
> A simple use case:
>
> Someone wants to make a contribution to a package maintained in a bzr.
> He creates a branch from the trunk, makes his changes and publish his
> modified branch.
> The maintainer can pull the changes, review and merge them to trunk,
> voila. I think it's easier for everyone. The changes can be
> reverted and the credits of the patch are kept. Moreover there are
> tools like bzr-buildpackage to build full package from a bzr branch. I
> talked here of bzr because of its integration in LP, but it could be any
> (decentralised) VCS.

Easier for those that use bzr and LP.  Not EVERYONE.

Scott K