Deprecating the wiki-based Packaging Guide

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> >One concrete example where UDD shines and the non-UDD workflow is
> >inadequate is for sponsoring of package merges.  If someone hands me a
> >branch that properly merges the new Debian version into the Ubuntu
> >branch, I can review that with the standard bzr diff tools and ascertain
> >that the sponsoree has done the merge correctly.  If someone hands me a
> >debdiff for a Debian merge, that's useless; I effectively have to do the
> >merge myself as part of the review, and no time is saved.

I should clarify here that I meant a merge of a new upstream version
packaged in Debian.  For packaging-only merges, debdiffs work fine.

> It only works better if you are using UDD.  I agree that if your primary
> workflow is UDD based, then UDD branches are better.  If I get a branch
> it's as useless for me as a debdiff is for you.  When asked to sponsor
> things that have a branch, I generally decline or ask for a debdiff.

Your decision to boycott UDD doesn't make a UDD branch "useless".  A debdiff
for a merge of a new upstream package version actually *is* useless and is a
waste of the sponsoree's time, for the stated reason that the "review" of
such a debdiff involves re-doing the merge myself.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20121218/700b79c7/attachment.pgp>