Re: patch management with git
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Personally, I love having a branch where I can plain directly with the
> patched code, as it is an all win: code is ready to read / work on,
> patches are stored as feature branches. I usually call it plainly
> "master", but it can well be upstream+patches, I've seen him in other
> packages. Question though: in that cases what is master being used for?
In my understanding of (some people's) (best-?) practices,
upstream+patches is patched upstream, without debian/, and master is
patched upstream, with debian/ (with upstream+patches merged in it). At
least, this is what I do in my new packages. In this way, "git diff
upstream..upstream+patches" gives you a patch ready for upstream submission.
However, I agree this might not be clear, so I think whatever the
choice, a good think would be to document it in README.source.