On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 01:05:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But given that we recommend upstream/latest for the upstream branch, I'm now
> leaning towards using debian/latest as default as well.
FWIW, I like this better than any of the other suite-neutral names that
I'd previously suggested. It has the advantage of making it obvious that
this name is only suitable for packages whose workflow is that they
will keep adding the latest versions to that branch, even if they are
only going to be uploaded to experimental (like gnome-shell, but unlike
dbus, which would instead rename its default debian/master branch to
debian/unstable or debian/sid, leaving debian/experimental for the latest
versions).
IMO it's a good recommendation to use debian/latest as default, because we put it
the current (last) work on the package. But I am a little confusing about the
transition into a latest version (thinking it as "in develop") to a debian/sid or debian/unstable
branch where the package is not in develop, I mean is not in develop for the reason
that the package pass from a develop/test/pre-work state to sid distribution where
the package could not be changed without an uploaded process.
DEP-14 will recommend the use of debian/latest for a package uploaded to sid/unstable?
or debian/latest is a pre work before uploaded to sid/unstable?
So, I think would be a good recommendation to use debian/latest as a default branch
for "develop" reasons, then when the package is ready to upload move that change
to other branch debian/experimental, debian/sid, etc..
Cheers,
Emmanuel
smcv