On 2019-10-25 19:06, Christian Kastner wrote:
Hi,
I've become accustomed to the DEP-14 branch names, ie
* debian/master instead of master
* debian/<release>
* upstream/latest instead of upstream
* etc.
However, the Debian Science Policy Manual currently still maintains
master and upstream as a "should" [1].
Has a policy switch to DEP-14 been discussed before? Would anyone
consider it significant issue if I were to deviate from the current
policy?
(Just to be clear: I favor standardization and uniformity over
individual preference).
[1] https://science-team.pages.debian.net/policy/#idm180
Hasn't been discussed. It's marked as DRAFT still at
https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/
I've been used to the simpler master, upstream naming. There's the case
where upstream updates are made in a single git commit (importing orig
from an upstream tarball), so it's contextually clear that the changes
made in the repo are specific to the debian packaging. In this case the
debian/master prefix becomes a heavy overhead, i.e. makes the branch
harder to read (more "annoying", carrying unnecessary text).
It's more clear cut in the alternative case where upstream git is merged
into the debian repo, so upstream commits are recorded alongside debian
packaging commits. In this case certainly debian/master is the sensible
choice.
Drew
