Ian Jackson [11/Jun 4:30pm +01] wrote:
> Andrea Pappacoda writes ("Re: Bug#1139658: git-deborig: should look for tag
> without 0_ prefix"):
>> On Wed Jun 10, 2026 at 8:39 PM CEST, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > I think this is probably too unusual to special case. Often such a
>> > 0~ means there's no upstream at all.
>>
>> It's not *that* unusual, as a lintian tag exists for this:
>> <https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-uses-date-based-version-number.html>.
>
> That's something subtly broader. That lint covers also cases where
> upstream don't make tags at all. TBH, I don't have a strong feeling
> about a special case for this, but I think we should focus our efforts
> on the general solution:I think there are probably many similar conventions that would have just as much an argument for being looked for by git-deborig as this 0~ one. It *is* more convenient for people if we support them and they don't have to edit gbp.conf. On the other hand, requiring the user to edit gbp.conf removes ambiguity, and we won't let git-deborig proceed unless the situation is unambiguous anyway. I guess that if someone wanted to encode some of these special cases into git-deborig in a sensible way, we should probably accept those patches, but I working on the gbp.conf support would be a much more fruitful use of time. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
