Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories"):
> I agree that the expected contents of the branches are far more
> important than their names. Unfortunately, while acting as "the Debian
> expert" for Debian derivatives at $day_job, I keep finding that the
> answer to "OK, I've cloned a package's git repository, I know what code
> change I want, now do I change the upstream source or drop a patch into
> debian/patches or what?" is "... I can't actually answer that until you
> tell me which source package you're working on".
This is indeed a very big problem. It is why I am working on dgit.
I don't think this problem, of a mass of different branch structures,
is going to go away any time soon. Simply because people don't seem
able to agree.
My answer is to create a parallel universe in which the branch
structure is known. The maintainers of each package choose whether to
use the dgit `universe', in which case certain basic assumptions can
be relied on, or run their own `universe' in which case they can
structure it however they like.
Luckily git makes it fairly easy to transport changes from one
universe into another.