On 2020-09-04 at 11:42, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > So here's my counter proposal: > > --- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn > +++ b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn > @@ -201,12 +201,16 @@ Native packages > > The above conventions mainly cater to the case where the upstream > developers and the package maintainers are not the same set of persons. > - > -When upstream is Debian (or one of its derivative), the upstream vendor > -should not use the usual `<vendor>/` prefix (but all others vendors should > -do so). The main development branch does not have to be named after > -the codename of the target distribution (although you are free to still > -use the codename if you wish so). > +By contrast, this section applies to native packages where upstream is > +Debian (or one of its derivatives) and where the packaging and upstream > +source code are managed in the same branch(es). > + > +In that specific situation, the upstream vendor should not use the usual > +`<vendor>/` prefix for their branches and tags (but all others vendors > +should do so) As long as this is being patched anyway, how about fixing the "others vendors" duplicate pluralization? I'd suggest either "but all other vendors should do so" or "as all others should do", but other variations are possible and I don't have a strong preference. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature