On Friday, January 24, 2025 9:50:10 AM MST Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Thanks everyone for sharing your viewpoints, it is interesting to read!
>
> I feel I need to clarify that I am not a native English speaker and my
> intent was to write a polite and honest email. It does not say
> anywhere that "you must use debian/latest". I am happy with whatever
> the convention is, as long as it works, and is universal at least for
> new packages.
>
> I am fine if single-maintainer packages, or closed-team packages do
> whatever they want, as it won't affect others (at least immediately),
> but not having "best practice" agreed on basic things like git
> branches does cause unnecessary friction and time waste for those who
> participate in the maintenance of packages in multiple different
> teams, at least from my perspective.
>
> As somebody who is mentoring multiple new maintainers, I see them in
> particular having unnecessary hardship from lack of properly agreed
> conventions. For the long-term success of Debian, I think that
> discussing the best practices and having some things agreed is
> valuable, even though running the discussions does take energy.
I agree that we need one standard naming scheme. Based on the email responses, it seems like debian/latest doesn’t convey the appropriate meaning, with something like debian/unstable being more appropriate. Perhaps you should create a vote with MR options (similar to the one you did for DEP-0 naming). Once there is a strong consensus on what the name should be, I would recommend that gbp be reprogrammed to default to that name (I know it is a lot of work), and after that it will probably be fairly easy to to get DEP-14 accepted.
--
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.