martin f krafft wrote:
> master is the Debianisation branch which provides ./debian/. All
> changes to ./debian/ are done there. It is not serialised,
> obviously, but serves as the base for build (it's merged into build
> for each new release) and then the patches are modified and
> committed.

I understood this, but I wonder why you use two distinct branches for
this. IIUC, your build branch will consist only on merges with the
master branch and updates of patches, right? What benefits do you get by
cluttering the history with those merge commits? There must be something
I'm missing...

> build holds the actual source from which the package was built.
> master holds the development line for ./debian/

Imagine I agree on the purpose of the two branches "build" and "master".
Shouldn't "build" be "master"? And "master" something else (e.g.
"debian")? In most git repositories, the package is built from the
"master" branch, and it seems to me that this is what git-buildpackage
expects. BTW, have you considered collaborating with Guido Günther to
make git-buildpackage work better with topgit?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to