On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:01:58AM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > 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"?
I do not want to have another branch lying around that is not necessary, and I do not want to have to care for creating it in he first place. This only makes things more and more complicated. -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
