Re: backport python-astropy for jessie?
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 3:56 AM, Ole Streicher <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Leo and Andreas,
> On 03.02.2017 09:12, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 01:18:40AM -0500, Leo P. Singer wrote:
>>> Git will not let me name the branch 'debian/jessie-backports' because there is already a branch called 'debian':
>>> $ git branch -m debian/jessie-backports
>>> error: 'refs/heads/debian' exists; cannot create 'refs/heads/debian/jessie-backports'
>>> fatal: Branch rename failed
>>> Apparently, it is a known issue with git that you cannot create a branch 'foo/bar' if branch 'foo' exists:
>>> Since it looks like most debian-astro packages have a 'debian' branch rather than 'master', is it OK if for debian-astro we instead adopt the practice that backports go in the 'jessie-backports' branch?
>> If the Debian Astro team is doing things consistently that's pretty fine
>> for me. For outsider / newcomers its helpful if its written down
>> somewhere when deriving from what other teams consider standard,
> We are not consistent here, and this is probably my fault: I slightly
> prefer(ed) "debian" in my packages, and so many of the debian-astro
> packages have that. On the other hand I know that many people use
> "master", and when sponsoring new packages, I let people choose freely.
> But when we run into trouble here we should probably stick/move to one
> standard; so I would propose to just rename the "debian" branch in
> astropy to "master". I could do that during the day. Disadvantage is
> that other users will need to resync their repository, but since I am
> the only uploader/contributor yet, this should be not a big problem (if
> it is not one for you, Leo).
> If there is someone lurking and depending on the current structure, and
> reading this mailing list, pleas complain ASAP :-)
That would be very helpful. Would you please rename the debian branch for all of astropy's dependencies: giza, wcslib, erfa, and python-astropy-helpers?