On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 18:55 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
On Mon Mar 10, 2025 at 6:08 PM CET, Neal Gompa wrote:
And Git is not opinionated workflow-wise, so it is absolutely okay to be critical of the Git-OBS workflow. I certainly am not happy with it, and I'm fairly well-versed in Git and even implemented my own workflow with OBS years ago for a previous employer.
I have said nothing against criticism of the Git-OBS workflow, please, go ahead and criticise, it certainly needs more people thinking about it.
To be honest, I think the best solution would have been to integrate the git backend directly into OBS and just map git commands to osc commands, so that in the end, the workflow is not going to change too much for most users. If people will want to use git, they would still be able to do so. I would call myself sufficiently well-versed in git and I think it's a fantastic tool to work with on actual code bases. But I think it's just a little overkill for source-tracking a tarball, a changes and spec file and maybe some patches. I mean, do you really need git-bisect or git-rebase for working on a simple spec file? It's not that you are working with 150.000 lines of code with hundreds of commits per week where you actually need something like git-bisect to track a bug. If you're dealing with spec files, tracking down a bug usually boils down to looking at the spec file with your own eyes and locating the problem within a few seconds. Adrian