Hi, I'm lagging a little bit behind this thread, but I didn't want to discard my previous mail of which most were written earlier this morning.
Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 5 September 2012 15:48, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> wrote: > > I never understood why everyone insist in using the default name "master". > > This doesn't express anything at all. Instead, you should be using: > > > > - wheezy > > - sid > > - experimental > > Right. That has been a sort of long-term goal ;-) :-) > For historical reasons, aptitude is a non-native package. We have a > combined gbp and upstream setup at the moment: > > - master (“upstream” development) > - upstream (merged from master via git-import-orig) "merged" not in the sense of merging the branch but in the sense of reimporting it, right? At least I don't see an git-import-orig option which allows "upstream-source" to be a git branch. > [I have a local branch, stable-0.6, which is split from master at > .8. Can you push that branch to alioth, so that there's also such a branch on alioth. Was looking for that branch there recently. > This is the branch I want to replace master with; it has no debian/ > directory.] Shouldn't hurt creating that branch now. > I had planned to merge debian to master after Wheezy, making this a > native package, and drop the upstream and debian branches. Sounds like a good idea for me. There may be minor things which work less well with a native package, but I think the advantages overrule. > Perhaps instead of waiting I should just do both now, creating the > wheezy/sid branches and forget about master. I'd rename master then, too. Maybe in 0.6.9 or experimental-0.6.9 or such. Florian Schlichting wrote: > > The revert would be huge, which is why I wanted to avoid it. You are > > right that this is less disruptive to others who pull from the repo. > > I'd say if you have more than two people who pulled from the repo, avoid > it. Git doesn't care how big the revert is, the important thing IMHO is > that by first reverting and then merging or cherry-picking, you are not > going to have merge conflics, so it's pain-free. Sounds fine to me. > > Any thoughts about release .10 with most of .9 changes reverted, and > > missing the NEWS entry for .9? > > NEWS is what's shown to people when they upgrade, and it's purely > informational: if there's nothing your users need to know when upgrading > to .10, ommit it. Particularly if users upgrading from .8 would be shown > confusing things for .9 that are no longer relevant in .10. If you're > worried about "rewriting history", why not make a note about the > deletion in d/changelog? Yeah, I think the changelog is the better place. Just mention in the 0.6.10 changelog entry that the 0.6.9 branch was a dead end and 0.6.10 is based on 0.6.8. That should suffice. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
