Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format [and 1 more messages]
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format"):
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > From https://perl-team.pages.debian.net/git.html#Patches it appears
> > the Perl team is using what the survey page has labelled as "unapplied"
> > (also seen referred to as "patches-unapplied" elsewhere):
> >
> > - a git checkout of the packaging branch contains debian/control, etc.
> > [rest of extended description]
...
> I confirm that your assumptions about the Perl team (and many other
> teams) are correct and I have now understood your table better.
Thanks. I will see if I can find a way to integrate Simon's excellent
presentation of this same information (or, these same questions) into
the survey page. It's too bulky really to fit into the table but it
expresses the questions much more clearly.
> That's also correct. BTW, I see room for unification here to settle
> with a common branch name layout.
I think I need to add something about branch name layout.
> I admit under the circumstances you describe DEP-14 has advantages over
> default gbp. I'm not sure how productive it would be for teams with
> about 1000 packages to change the repository layout (posssibly its
> scriptable) just to reach more inter-team uniformity. I personally
> considered a good idea to stick to gbp default. In case gbp might
> change that default I'd consider to follow that change.
I don't have an opinion on this. It is obviously suboptimal that on
branch naming we have both
1. a document claiming to set out best practice
2. a very widely used tool
which contradict each other.
Ian.
Reply to: