Re: emacsen-team salsa usage
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
>> I guess if we agree it's the maintainers problem to rebase / merge their
>> unreleased changes onto the unstable branch before uploading, having a
>> single branch for unreleased changes would work for me. I would even be
>> fine with that being called master, and having a known good branch
>> corresponding to sid. Maybe debian/master for WIP, and debian/unstbale for
>> actual uploaded state.
>
> I'm not really happy with the extra work imposed by such a convention
> until someone shows a convincing case where it saves significant effort.
>
Hmmm. Maybe it just needs more thought to how to do actual uploads.
In general the upload should be based on the git ref matching the
current version in unstable (or wherever you are uploading to). If we
have reliable way of finding that (e.g. a convention for tags), then
effectively the uploader can lazily create the "debian/unstbale" (sic)
branch and turn it into a merge request.
So is there a reliable way for any team repo to say "give me the git
ref corresponding to the version in unstable"? dgit-clone doesn't do
that e.g. for packages that haven't been upload. In the special case
where that matches master (or whatever the default branch is; it would
be nice to standardize there), no MR is needed.
Reply to: