Quoting Holger Levsen (2025-05-29 00:05:44) > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > > does it make sense to work in debian/latest and only last before pushing for > > review create another branch next/debian/latest? I'd always intuitively work > > in next/debian/latest directly. > > I appreciate and applaus Otto's posts too, but can we please agree on > debian/unstable, debian/experimental, debian/trixie, ... as our *default*? > while still "allowing" debian/latest and and also debian/3.11 and > debian/3.12 and debian/foo and debian/bar? > > I've come to think that dep-14 should recommend debian/* and more > specifically debian/unstable for uploads to unstable. > > (And since this is a rather newer fallout from > http://ppc64el.reproduce.debian.net/ I thought I would share.)
https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ currently says... > Packages uploaded to the current development release should be > prepared in either a <vendor>/latest or <vendor>/<suite> branch If you suggest that using "debian/latest" should *not* be done by default, then it seems that requires reverting changes to DEP-14. Personally, I don't see a problem in finalizing DEP-14 with its current wording, but I might miss something (more generally relevant than "let's just all use git-buildpackage" which I don't think is what you are saying here). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
