Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories
Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> writes:
> It makes more sense when you're a pure upstream, as master might be
> where you do all your cutting edge development, and there isn't usually
> a clear alternative naming scheme (e.g. code names). 'trunk' might be
> better anyway. But in Debian's case, all packaging work is targeted to
> a series, so it makes more sense to make that evident in the branch
> name.
I use "master" as the Debian branch that targets sometimes unstable and
sometimes experimental. If I called it either sid or experimental, it
would occasionally be inaccurate, and that would annoy me in a petty and
unconsequential way that would nonetheless make working on it slightly
less fun, but always branching when I start targetting experimental would
be irritating in a different way.
I believe that by doing packaging on the master branch, I'm using master
in exactly the same way that it is normally used in the Git convention:
the most recent development tip, off of which other release branches (if
needed) will be cut.
It's certainly fine with me if other people do other things, and I approve
of the fact that the Vcs-Git header can now represent the branch
information so that people can use whatever convention they wish and our
tools can still interoperate.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: