On 22/05/2018 07.39, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
>> On 21/05/2018 13.04, Guido Günther wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>
>> Hi Guido, thanks for your reply.
>>
>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
When worki
Hi,
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> On 21/05/2018 13.04, Guido Günther wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Guido, thanks for your reply.
>
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> >>
> >> When working with git remotes and tags (instead of importi
On 21/05/2018 13.04, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
>>
>> /usr/share/doc/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.upstream-git.html
>
> I think the documentation above does not suggest that there is no
> upstream branch, rather that you don't
On 21/05/2018 13.04, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Guido, thanks for your reply.
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
>>
>> When working with git remotes and tags (instead of importing upstream
>> tarballs) an upstream branch is not normally not needed or wanted. Thi
Hi,
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> Package: git-buildpackage
> Version: 0.9.8
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear gbp maintainers/devs,
>
> When working with git remotes and tags (instead of importing upstream
> tarballs) an upstream branch is not normally not needed o
Package: git-buildpackage
Version: 0.9.8
Severity: normal
Dear gbp maintainers/devs,
When working with git remotes and tags (instead of importing upstream
tarballs) an upstream branch is not normally not needed or wanted. This
kind of workflow is not uncommon, in fact is is suggested by the gbp
d
6 matches
Mail list logo