* Simon McVittie: " Re: RFC: Final update of DEP-14 on naming of git packaging
branches" (Sun, 30 Aug 2020 15:02:35 +0100):
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If I know that the next upstream release
> > breaks backwards compatitibly and that it will have to mature a long time
> > in experimental until all other packages are ready, I might start to
> > package it rigth now in debian/experimental and continue to use
> > debian/latest for my unstable uploads.
>
> If that's your workflow (the same as src:dbus, where versions 1.13.x
> are a development branch not recommended for general use), then I don't
> think debian/latest is a good name for that branch, and I'd recommend
> using debian/unstable for your unstable uploads.
>
> Rationale: it seems very confusing if a branch with "latest" in its name
> does not contain the newest available version :-)
+1
Additionally I think explicit is usually better than implicit. When all other
branches are named following their suites why should we diverge for this special
case?
> (debian/master didn't have that problem because it's named by analogy
> to the "master" branch used in upstream git repositories, which doesn't
> really have a fixed meaning anyway.)
BTW the same applies for me to the (re-)naming of the 'default' branch
(currently master). If it is the default branch the most plausible name is just
'default'.
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
Attachment:
pgpEAm_Ugg9IC.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP