Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> writes: > It makes more sense when you're a pure upstream, as master might be > where you do all your cutting edge development, and there isn't usually > a clear alternative naming scheme (e.g. code names). 'trunk' might be > better anyway. But in Debian's case, all packaging work is targeted to > a series, so it makes more sense to make that evident in the branch > name.
I use "master" as the Debian branch that targets sometimes unstable and sometimes experimental. If I called it either sid or experimental, it would occasionally be inaccurate, and that would annoy me in a petty and unconsequential way that would nonetheless make working on it slightly less fun, but always branching when I start targetting experimental would be irritating in a different way. I believe that by doing packaging on the master branch, I'm using master in exactly the same way that it is normally used in the Git convention: the most recent development tip, off of which other release branches (if needed) will be cut. It's certainly fine with me if other people do other things, and I approve of the fact that the Vcs-Git header can now represent the branch information so that people can use whatever convention they wish and our tools can still interoperate. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87k365xt16....@hope.eyrie.org
