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? -- Stéphane
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/vcs-pkg-discuss