On Fri Aug 22, 2025 at 5:51 PM CEST, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
In future, please try to preserve the upstream git commit history. I know that some people are still in the pristine-tar mindset, which squashes (stomps?) upstream git history down to a single merge commit. However, it's a lot easier to track down the origin and date of bugs when the Debian repo history matches the upstream history.Incidentally, this is the very first point in the Debian Go Team workflow, described at https://go-team.pages.debian.net/workflow-changes.html#wf-2017-11-upstream-branch (and the next point is phasing out pristine-tar branches).I think we should have *both* upstream git history and pristine-tar to ensure the tarball has the same shasum no matter who produces it. It happens automatically if you have these lines in gbp.conf:
What's the point of checking the tarball checksum? I mean, of course it has value when done by itself. But does it still have value when the tarball is just a temporary artifact generated by an audited Git history?
Also, by not having to work with tarballs, you not only stop needing the pristine-tar branch, but you also no longer need the upstream/latest branch. Why? Because you're not actually building the upstream branch yourself via gbp imports, but you're just branching off upstream tags (which still carry commit history, of course). This means that in Salsa, you can finally just store one single branch!
Note: I'm working on pristine-tar support for tag2upload. I don't want to see it die. But, still, I'm starting to question its usefulness when paired with the upstream Git.
Anyway, this is kinda off topic for the go list, unless we want to start suggesting not creating an "upstream" branch at all :)
Bye!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature