Hello, On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:53:25PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Le 20/11/2010 12:05, Ralf Treinen a écrit : > > I suggest that we add to the dom packaging reference that branches intended > > for primary release into a distribution should be named like that > > distribution, that is experimental, squeeze, whatever-backport, etc, with > > the exception that the branch for sid is called master. Does that sound > > reasonable? > > My own practice is to use git-buildpackage's defaults (master, upstream) > for unstable, and prefix them by "experimental/" (e.g. > experimental/master and experimental/upstream) for experimental. For > $codename, I would similarly create $codename/master and > $codename/upstream. I'd like to see this adopted by the team. > > Having two git branches (master/upstream) per Debian branch is IMHO > cleaner, and also fits better with git-buildpackage. I got used to it > and saw nothing better so far. I find the name "experimental" ambiguous, > and the words look in the wrong order in master-experimental. And > upstream/$whatever conclicts with git-buildpackage's default name for > the upstream branch. Starting names with $branch/ doesn't conflict with > gbp's defaults, and forces to use an additionnal component name that > makes the name meaningful gbp-wise.
I like that proposal, since it allows us for the "standard" case (sid) to keep the current system, and to be consistent with the debian git tools. And it is a clean solution in case one needs a distribution specific branch. IMHO, in case one uses $codename/debian, the branch $codename/upstream should be optional. This should be in particular useful for experimental where frequently only the debian packaging is experimental. -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
