Status update: I discovered (and documented) gbp’s postclone=origtargz
option. Also, I prepared (and documented/referenced) two git hooks.

I’m still not entirely certain about how to approach the “upstream
branch contains upstream git history” change in the best way.
Suggestions/tips welcome.

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Michael Stapelberg
<stapelb...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Martín Ferrari <tin...@tincho.org> wrote:
>> On 09/11/17 04:24, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>>
>>> At least for our transition period, we’ll have to use origtargz.
>>
>> Yes, but only for -2 and up releases. For -1, origtargz would do the
>> same as gbp (AFAIK).
>
> Yes, for -1 releases, users supply the orig tarball :)
>
>>
>>> I’m happy to pro-actively add compression algorithm/level options and
>>> evaluate at a later time whether that worked. I think just testing
>>> across different machines is a good start, but we should also pass the
>>> test of time — perhaps we can easily simulate that by testing on
>>> stable/oldstable.
>> Not sure if we need to devote a lot of time to this, after all, the
>> worst that can happen is a rejected upload because of checksum mismatches.
>
> Personally, I find rejected uploads super frustrating, especially
> because of the large delay in between the action and the result (up to
> half an hour).
>
> I’d really like to define a workflow which makes them a thing of the
> past. For the time being, this is using origtargz.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michael



-- 
Best regards,
Michael

_______________________________________________
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Reply via email to