Re: Proposal: Switch to linear git history
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 07:18:27PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 05:30:26PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > The repository for the Linux kernel in Debian currently makes heavy use
> > > of merges, which will always conflict due to changelog changes. This
> > > constitutes high cognitive busy load, for pretty small gains.
>
> I agree that this is a waste of time and resources for feature
> branches. We ought to avoid that by automating changelog updates for
> changes to the Debian packaging (gbp dch or somethign similar).
Feature branches are not affected here.
> But I've never found these conflicts to be a big problem when merging
> between different branches.
I always do. Which part needs to come from where? debian/changelog
from both, debian/config from both, but don't try to get debian/patches
from both sides.
> > > Stop merging back changes, but create version distinct branches.
> > > Something like that:
> > >
> > > master: uploaded to experimental
> > > -> debian/main/6.6: uploaded to unstable and stable releases
> > > -> debian/backport/6.6.1-1: uploaded to backports
> > > -> debian/security/6.6.1+1: extra security releases
> > >
> > > ## Disadvantages
> > >
> > > - All changes need to go via master, which they should do anyway.
> > > - In case of patch backports:
> > > - A bug will be closed multiple times.
> > > - The exact version a change reached unstable is not longer visible.
> > > - No automatic way for patches required in the backports suites (I have
> > > a larger config overhaul, where we could add something for that.)
>
> If we're going to change branch naming then we should be moving towards
> DEP-14, but this seems to diverge further.
I don't find any branches with version in DEP-14. So this is not even
applicable here.
> Do you see any advantages to this beyond avoiding conflicts?
It removed useless work.
Bastian
--
The idea of male and female are universal constants.
-- Kirk, "Metamorphosis", stardate 3219.8
Reply to: