Re: names of distribution-branches in the git repository
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:53:25PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> 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 like that proposal, since it allows us for the "standard" case (sid)
to keep the current system, and to be consistent with the debian git tools.
And it is a clean solution in case one needs a distribution specific branch.
IMHO, in case one uses $codename/debian, the branch $codename/upstream
should be optional. This should be in particular useful for experimental
where frequently only the debian packaging is experimental.
-Ralf.
Reply to: