Re: RFC: Final update of DEP-14 on naming of git packaging branches
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
> What I propose is to require for dep14 compliance that uploads to
> <codename> are to be cut from debian/<codename> branches, unless
> <codename> is experimental. This allows to checkout the "maintainer
> view" of a given (nonexperimental) version of a package by knowing only:
>
> - the repository location
> - the relevant d/changelog entry.
You are asking for more than what DEP-14 is trying to achieve.
DEP-14 does not mandate any specific workflow, it mainly tries to
stantardize the branch names for the various cases that we have.
We're not trying to impose one workflow or the other. So it's not
debian/unstable vs debian/latest. We want to document what we can
expect when you have debian/latest and what you can expect when
you have debian/unstable.
> This automatically allows:
I don't think that anything in the current wording is forbidding
anything that you list.
I already agreed that we can tweak the wording to document that it's
OK to use debian/unstable as default branch even if you are not a complex
package that require multiple branches, provided that you will not
use debian/unstable when you decide to push something to experimental.
Cheers,
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Reply to: