On Nov 12, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >I don't know. My long term hope is that in this process we will get to a >situation where: >- either the tools are sufficiently interoperable that we don't have to > care about this >- or one of tools emerges as standard supporting all the important > workflows that people are using I think we should strive for #1 for now and see if #2 emerges. >I am rather opposed to this because it because it doesn't separate clearly >the namespaces for the upstream development and the namespace for the >Debian packaging. I still think you could get away with simpler names for most cases, but it also seems fine to establish these namespaces. I mention it because over in Debian Python we've been experimenting with the migration to git, and if we're going to continue then I think it's useful to align with this DEP. It'll mean renaming some branches in the experimentally converted repos, but that's should be okay. >> for the current Ubuntu development series. If I needed to support older >> releases in either distro, then debian/wheezy or ubuntu/utopic would be good >> branches to use. (Or IOW, what's the equivalent of debian/sid for Ubuntu?) > >I was wondering that as well. For Ubuntu, it probably makes sense to use >ubuntu/master because the latest development release regularly changes and >it's not a good idea to alway update the branch. Actually, Ubuntu does have a 'devel' channel for rolling releases, and I believe it's guaranteed that this will always point to the current, in-development version. E.g. right now it points to vivid. So I guess ubuntu/devel makes the most sense here. >Or maybe we recommend "upstream/latest" by default but allow "upstream" >alone in the case when there are no other upstream branches tracked ? +1 Cheers, -Barry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature