Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 at 17:47:40 +1100, Brian May wrote: > At the moment - since there were no objections yet - I have revised the > wiki documentation (link already provided) to include DEP-14 and > debian/master (as per DEP-14). I think there's value in using debian/master for the focus of development rather than arguing debian/master vs. debian/unstable vs. debian/sid, on the basis that it's essentially an arbitrary choice, and debian/master is what other packages are already using. In a thread about moving from a less-widely-used tool-specific git repo layout (git-dpm) to a layout that is used by a lot of teams and doesn't even strictly require a particular tool (a gbp-pq-style patches-unapplied branch), it would seem odd to introduce another DPMT-specific point of divergence :-) S
Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
Thomas Goirand writes: >> Why debian/unstable, and not debian/sid? > > Because "unstable" is what we write in debian/changelog, so that's > consistent, and also consistent if we upload to experimental. But I'm > fine either ways anyway, if others would like to use debian/sid because > it's faster to type. At the moment - since there were no objections yet - I have revised the wiki documentation (link already provided) to include DEP-14 and debian/master (as per DEP-14). -- Brian May
Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
On 03/06/2017 11:18 PM, Brian May wrote: > On 2017-03-07 08:43, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> I prefer if we use debian/unstable rather than debian/master though, so >> it is more explicit where we upload that branch. > > My reading of DEP-14 is that is says we should use debian/master. > > Not that I care much myself, either is fine with me. > > Why debian/unstable, and not debian/sid? Because "unstable" is what we write in debian/changelog, so that's consistent, and also consistent if we upload to experimental. But I'm fine either ways anyway, if others would like to use debian/sid because it's faster to type. >> Also, it'd be wise to >> set that branch as default when cloning the repository. ie we shall ran >> on Alioth: >> >> git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/debian/unstable >> >> so that debian/unstable becomes the default branch. This has a good >> chance to avoid confusion between the old "master" (ie: git-dpm) branch >> and the new DEP14 style that we would adopt. > > I didn't know you could do this. Good to know. The only annoying bit with that thing, is that you can't run it remotely with a git command (unless there's a new command I didn't know about). As a consequence, you need to have an interactive shell access and type the command on the server. Lucky, Alioth provides it and it's ok in our case. But sometimes, you don't have such access, and it's very annoying. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
On 2017-03-07 08:43, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I prefer if we use debian/unstable rather than debian/master though, so > it is more explicit where we upload that branch. My reading of DEP-14 is that is says we should use debian/master. Not that I care much myself, either is fine with me. Why debian/unstable, and not debian/sid? > Also, it'd be wise to > set that branch as default when cloning the repository. ie we shall ran > on Alioth: > > git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/debian/unstable > > so that debian/unstable becomes the default branch. This has a good > chance to avoid confusion between the old "master" (ie: git-dpm) branch > and the new DEP14 style that we would adopt. I didn't know you could do this. Good to know. > When doing this, we should also make sure to clearly self-document this > using: > > # cat debian/gbp.conf > [DEFAULT] > debian-branch = debian/unstable > > Last, I would consider it a nice improvement. Not a critical one. So if > others feel like we should keep the git-dpm old layout to avoid > confusing people, I wouldn't mind so much. I would also suggest making the same change (maybe with an appropriate comment) on the old branch. It should result in people checking out the wrong branch being unable to build with gbp, and hopefully this should also serve as a reference to the correct branch.
Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
On 03/06/2017 09:25 PM, Brian May wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > >> Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion. I'm interested in the >> views of DPMT members with gbp pq experience. What's the consensus about >> branch naming (all I know is for git-dpm, it was pretty hard wired)? > > I tend to think that branching will easier with git pq. I seem to > remember some maintainers having problems with non-standard branch names > under git dpm. So one valid reason for not adopting different branches > will no longer apply. > > I personally think that DEP14 would be a good idea. I think the only > difference people would notice is that master is renamed to > debian/master. > > We would need to be careful though, having both a master and a > debian/master - even during transition planning - could be > confusing. Which one do I update? Probably no way to mark a branch read > only on alioth either (?). > > After the transition, what happens to the master branch? Do we delete > it? I *very much* vouch for the dep14 style of branch names. I've been using this for years. Maybe some will remember that's what I suggested in Debconf portland where we discussed switching to Git, and for the first time, agree on it. At the time, mostly everyone didn't like the idea though. I'm glad it looks like mind sets have moved to the direction I consider the best. There's 2 issues with calling the Debian packaging branch "master". First, it may conflict with an eventual upstream branch also called "master" (for those who like me enjoy doing a checkout of it). Second, the name "master" doesn't express anything, while "debian/unstable" is very much self-explanatory. I prefer if we use debian/unstable rather than debian/master though, so it is more explicit where we upload that branch. Also, it'd be wise to set that branch as default when cloning the repository. ie we shall ran on Alioth: git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/debian/unstable so that debian/unstable becomes the default branch. This has a good chance to avoid confusion between the old "master" (ie: git-dpm) branch and the new DEP14 style that we would adopt. When doing this, we should also make sure to clearly self-document this using: # cat debian/gbp.conf [DEFAULT] debian-branch = debian/unstable Last, I would consider it a nice improvement. Not a critical one. So if others feel like we should keep the git-dpm old layout to avoid confusing people, I wouldn't mind so much. Your thoughts? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
Scott Kitterman writes: > Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion. I'm interested in the > views of DPMT members with gbp pq experience. What's the consensus about > branch naming (all I know is for git-dpm, it was pretty hard wired)? I tend to think that branching will easier with git pq. I seem to remember some maintainers having problems with non-standard branch names under git dpm. So one valid reason for not adopting different branches will no longer apply. I personally think that DEP14 would be a good idea. I think the only difference people would notice is that master is renamed to debian/master. We would need to be careful though, having both a master and a debian/master - even during transition planning - could be confusing. Which one do I update? Probably no way to mark a branch read only on alioth either (?). After the transition, what happens to the master branch? Do we delete it? -- Brian May
Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
Updated the subject, since we've drifted... On Monday, March 06, 2017 04:47:39 PM Simon McVittie wrote: > On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 at 10:32:17 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I think it's reasonable to try this out on a branch > > Here's a maybe-stupid idea: use http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14/ branch > naming (debian/master, debian/experimental) for that branch, and switch to > it as the default branch (edit foo.git/HEAD on alioth) when unfreezing > and "officially" switching to gbp-pq? > > (You would have to stick to either upstream or upstream/latest but not > mix them, though, because file vs. directory duality applies here.) > > I can offer https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-utopia/dbus.git as an > example of a repository with semi-complex history, that uses gbp-pq and > DEP-14. ioquake3, flatpak, ostree, openjk, iortcw are all simpler examples > if you want one of those. > > S Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion. I'm interested in the views of DPMT members with gbp pq experience. What's the consensus about branch naming (all I know is for git-dpm, it was pretty hard wired)? Scott K
