On 11/23/2010 08:53 AM, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > I see that a separate upstream branch is useful in case you are tracking > different versions of upstream than in sid, but this is not necessarily > the case. In fact I am using experimental mostly in situations like > in the current freeze when the upstream version is mostly the same in > sid as in experimental. And I do not see why I should be forced to > have seperate upstream branch in cases like this. >
You can use "experimental/master" and "upstream" branches. But, if you do that, then other members of the team will have to figure out that "experimental/upstream" is missing because "experimental/master" is using the same version as sid's. So, having "experimental/upstream" is team friendly since it clearly shows what you are doing. And since branches are really cheap in Git, I don't understand why this bothers you that much. You'll have to tell gbp that master branch is now "experimental/master" anyway… So why not doing the same for "upstream"? Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
