martin f krafft wrote: > I wish people would change subject lines more often...
Yes, it was time :-) > See #500656. Interesting... With Manoj's arguments and this bugreport, I now paradoxically understand the point in having two separate build/master branches. IIUC, the problem is being able to recreate the patch series of an earlier release: Manoj doesn't care and Martin keeps it in a branch, but this branch is more an artifact than a "real" working branch. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Concerning #500656, and Martin's suggestion: > It seems like the solution is a tg-tag command, which, when called > like > > tg-tag debian/1.0-1 tgbranch[, tgbranch, ...] > > tags the top-bases and tips of all specified tg-branches, e.g. like > this: > > refs/top-tags/debian/1.0-1/base and > refs/top-tags/debian/1.0-1/tip Doing it that way would pollute the tag namespace, IMO. What about keeping this data in a dedicated, special branch, like pristine-tar does? Then it would be quite easy to implement some kind of tg-debcheckout that could "checkout" a specific Debian release (i.e. the "right" revision + the "right" patch series). I am CC'ing #500656 with this suggestion. I don't mind having one tag per Debian release, but if we do what I say in the previous paragraph, I think the tags would be meaningless, and even misleading. Another solution would be to create short-living branches at each Debian release, that would just include the patch series and a final tag, before being deleted. Something like this: (master)-----------+----------+--------+-----> \ \ \ 0.3-1 0.3-2 0.3-3 This approach seems clean to me, but I am not so fond of it after all because it is quite error-prone (more than likely interference of things related to git and things related to packaging), and I wouldn't recommend it for a collaborative maintenance. (I know, I am strange to propose things I don't like myself, but my thoughts might be interesting to someone...) After all, Martin's current approach (collapsing all the short-living branches into one "build" branch) achieves the same goal, and now I kind of agree with it (it wasn't the case when I've started writing this mail!). Cheers, -- Stéphane
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/vcs-pkg-discuss