On 8/31/20 7:49 AM, Paride Legovini wrote: > Simon McVittie wrote on 30/08/2020: >> 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, moreover I find that "latest" does not convey the idea of something > that is in development: I tend to think about it in terms of "latest > release" or "latest version", something that is set already. > > This is fine with uptream/latest, as we import the latest *released* > version of the upstream source, not the current work in progress tip. I agree. > > Personally I'd prefer 'debian/devel': clearly the branch where > development happens. Yes, me to. If use 'debian/codename' broke some package workflow, I think that 'debian/devel' it's the name that tell me, that this is the branch used for development. Cheers, Emmanuel > > Paride >
Attachment:
0xFA9DEC5DE11C63F1.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature