Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Personally, I love having a branch where I can plain directly with the > patched code, as it is an all win: code is ready to read / work on, > patches are stored as feature branches. I usually call it plainly > "master", but it can well be upstream+patches, I've seen him in other > packages. Question though: in that cases what is master being used for?
In my understanding of (some people's) (best-?) practices, upstream+patches is patched upstream, without debian/, and master is patched upstream, with debian/ (with upstream+patches merged in it). At least, this is what I do in my new packages. In this way, "git diff upstream..upstream+patches" gives you a patch ready for upstream submission. However, I agree this might not be clear, so I think whatever the choice, a good think would be to document it in README.source. Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
