[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Workflow for releasing new upstream versions to experimental?

I strongly prefer a separate branch for experimental, to avoid commit reverts and the like.

My assumption is that all commits to the primary branch are tested and ready to go and I wish more people used other branches for aspirational or untested changes (like new releases from upstream). To be fair, I don't always meet my own aspirations :-)

As for gbp, the following bash snippet does the trick:

cat > debian/gbp.conf <<EOF
[DEFAULT]
debian-branch = debian/experimental
EOF



On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 18:35, Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> wrote:
Hi,

Since soft freeze is around the corner, and new upstream versions which are **not** targeted fixes is _discouraged_[1]

I plan uploading all new upstream versions till the release of bullseye to experimental. Hence I wanted to ask, is it sane to directly commit things to "master" branch with changelog revision x.y.z-w~0exp0?

In principle, it would be committed to d/experimental branch for a saner workflow, but after bullseye release, this branch can (in most cases) be directly merged with master. So instead of maintaining an extra branch, and modifying gbp workflow to use that, can commit new upstream releases directly to master(and ofcourse, release to experimental)?

Right now I'm following the defined workflow(of d/experimental branch), but if there are no objections, I'd go with what I proposed

[1]: https://release.debian.org/bullseye/FAQ.html

Nilesh


--
Reply to: