Hello, On 22-11-2010, Stéphane Glondu <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 22/11/2010 09:54, Sylvain Le Gall a écrit : >> Is experimental/upstream mandatory? I thought it was possible to inject >> upstream tarball in upstream branch and merge into master (or >> experimental/master). > > Then the upstream of the master branch doesn't correspond to any head? > > It is convenient to have a name for the base of the patch series, and > dom-{apply,save}-patches use that. Committing stuff in the upstream > branch not meant for master might confuse these tools (and those who are > used to them :). The upstream branch also plays a role in gbp, so it > might get confused too. For example, when you don't use pristine-tar, > which might happen temporarily when you make snapshots, gbp uses that > branch to generate a tarball. Moreover, branches are cheap in git, and > cost next to nothing when they are an ancestor of another branch. > > In short, experimental/upstream might not be mandatory, but having it is > convenient and avoids confusion IMHO.
Concerning the role in gbp, it uses branch + tag: (I disable the pristine-tar) gbp:info: ocaml-extunix_0.0.1.orig.tar.gz does not exist, creating from 'upstream/0.0.1' AFAIC, I never touch anything in upstream branch, so I won't be confused ;-) My point is that upstream branch is upstream and master (or experimental/master) should refer to upstream + tag. It seems to be the case and I think it is a consistent choice. So even if branches are cheap, I would prefer to have a single upstream branch. After all we only follow one upstream. 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]
