Re: names of distribution-branches in the git repository
On 23-11-2010, Ralf Treinen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:15:27PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> On 22-11-2010, Mehdi Dogguy <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > On 22/11/2010 14:15, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> >> May I suggest my own summary, about this feature (trying to solve
>> >> conflicts between all opinions):
>> > I think that we all agreed on Stéphane's proposal (at least, those
>> > who raised their voice here). Didn't we? :)
>> The only thing, I had against Stéphane proposal was about */upstream.
>> But as you see in the summary, I change my mind about that.
> I didn't.
> All changes to the upstream branch are local, and are not supposed to be
> pushed to the central repository (which usually means that they are
> only temporary and should not even be comitted). When I do changes
> on upstream then it is to try changes, and when I am satisfied I
> put them into a quilt patch on the the debian branch and undo them on
> my upstream branch.
The $distrib/upstream will only contain change made by upstream, not by
you. We just keep the same scheme as with master and upstream but
git-buildpackage need to have an upstream branch as a reference.
- git-import-orig in experimental/master will commit upstream tarball in
- if you made change to something outside debian/ in experimental/master
you can store it into debian/patches
Sylvain Le Gall