Re: RFC: Final update of DEP-14 on naming of git packaging branches
Richard Laager <rlaager@wiktel.com> writes:
> On 8/29/20 5:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The problem in my case with not putting a branch name in Vcs-Git is
>> that, for packages for which I'm also upstream, the default branch in
>> the repository named in that header is the upstream development branch,
>> which contains no Debian packaging files and thus would be a very
>> confusing thing for debcheckout to clone. So I have to name *some*
>> branch, which right now is debian/master and would be debian/latest.
> If the packaging is on Debian Salsa (which I would recommend), then I'd
> set the default branch to the packaging branch. If upstream happens to
> live there too, then people can switch to that explicitly.
This is a good point.
I have to admit that I wrote and deleted three different progressively
less upset replies because I apparently have a lot of emotional baggage
about project Git hosting. I think I'm realizing that part of what's
upsetting me is exactly that we're not standardizing on Salsa or some
other Git repository collection as the canonical place where as much of
Debian packaging as possible is stored. And while I can't change that
reality, pushing all of my own packaging to Salsa certainly wouldn't hurt
the goal of moving us in that direction, so maybe I should do that.
I agree that then makes the issue of Vcs-Git branch names moot.
If we could upload a package to the archive by pushing a signed tag to
Salsa, that of course would be even better and would, at least for me,
make Debian a more delightful project on which to work.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: