On 21-11-2010, Stéphane Glondu <[email protected]> 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 don't branch pristine-tar (and BTW I don't even always commit there > tarballs I don't upload to the official archive, especially snapshots), > given the fact that files once there are there forever, and new files > don't disturb tools (gbp, pristine-tar itself). > >
Is experimental/upstream mandatory? I thought it was possible to inject upstream tarball in upstream branch and merge into master (or experimental/master). Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
