Re: names of distribution-branches in the git repository

[Stéphane Glondu <steph@glondu.net>]

Le 20/11/2010 12:05, Ralf Treinen a écrit :
> I suggest that we add to the dom packaging reference that branches intended
> for primary release into a distribution should be named like that
> distribution, that is experimental, squeeze, whatever-backport, etc, with
> the exception that the branch for sid is called master. Does that sound
> reasonable?

My own practice is to use git-buildpackage's defaults (master, upstream)
for unstable, and prefix them by "experimental/" (e.g.
experimental/master and experimental/upstream) for experimental. For
$codename, I would similarly create $codename/master and
$codename/upstream. I'd like to see this adopted by the team.

Having two git branches (master/upstream) per Debian branch is IMHO
cleaner, and also fits better with git-buildpackage. I got used to it
and saw nothing better so far. I find the name "experimental" ambiguous,
and the words look in the wrong order in master-experimental. And
upstream/$whatever conclicts with git-buildpackage's default name for
the upstream branch. Starting names with $branch/ doesn't conflict with
gbp's defaults, and forces to use an additionnal component name that
makes the name meaningful gbp-wise.

I don't branch pristine-tar (and BTW I don't even always commit there
tarballs I don't upload to the official archive, especially snapshots),
given the fact that files once there are there forever, and new files
don't disturb tools (gbp, pristine-tar itself).


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane