Re: including upstream history when upstream uses git
Hi Diane,
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 11:06:07AM -0800, Diane Trout wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 11:22 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 02:34:26PM -0800, Diane Trout wrote:
> > > What's the debian-med team's position on whether or not to include
> > > the
> > > upstream history as described in:
> >
> > I don't think there is a "team's position" on it, except that it's
> > not
> > usual at all.
> > Personally, I find it more confusing then anything else, in all the
> > packages where this schema is used.
>
> I've tried it and feel like I'm more likely to mistakes when updating.
> I felt like packages intended for teams it's probably better to stay
> with the simpler workflow for now.
I admit I'm also sticking to the workflow
1. Fetch / create tarball
2. Import tarball as pristine tar
3. Build package
We have lots of packages that are not in Git and it helps me to simply
stick to one workflow that is always the same. If upstream fails to set
release tags and its not that simple to fetch a tarball you can always
use git mode in d/watch file which solves task 1. of the workflow.
I'm currently moving packages from Neurodebian team to Debian Med team
if the package has a long standing RC bug and I'm positive to be able to
fix it. In Neurodebian I've found different workflows and repository
layouts and I'm converting these all to the known workflow and
repository layout. IMHO this simplifies a lot for other team members.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: