Re: Understanding Git workflow around DEP-14
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 05:08:07PM -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:12 PM Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:50:49PM -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > 2. What should the "master" branch be used for?
> >
> > Consider the string "master" a label for _your leading branch_
> >
> >
> > > I don't use the master branch with DEP-14. I believe the DEP is stating
> > > that you'd use "master" for native packages - which from the sounds of it,
> > > yours is not. Therefore, I'd not use "master".
> >
> > But you have your own leading branch
> >
>
> When I am packaging someone else's software (upstream/latest) for inclusion
> in Debian (debian/master), I don't feel like I have "my own" leading branch.
>
> What am I missing for using (or not using) a "master" branch?
Nothing (and nothing)
The git term "clone" is a good term. Cloning is not just copying,
is creating a child with the exact DNA of its parent. The new repository
get its first branch named 'master'. Is it leading? It could.
Git being a distributed VCS makes it confuesing for newcomers.
We all start as child. There are parents. It takes a while before
we become parents. With `git` it goes much faster. Upon clone
there is a master.
> > > > 3. When a new upstream tarball is released, where should it be imported?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Assuming you have a remote named "github", I suppose you'd do something
> > > like:
> > >
> > > git pull github upstream/latest
> >
> >
> > I think it should be (be warned _not tested_ ) avoid that your
> > current branch gets pollueted.
> } git checkout upstream/latest
> } git pull github
> >
>
> What makes you believe that the current branch would get polluted?
>
> I believe a:
>
> git pull repo refspec
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> git checkout refspec
> git pull repo
>
> Am I wrong?
Don't know, _not tested_. But yes, It could work.
I try (way too much) to be on the safe side.
> Thanks for the dialog!
YW MP
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
Leven en laten leven
Reply to: