Re: names of distribution-branches in the git repository
On 21-11-2010, Stéphane Glondu <steph@glondu.net> 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 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).
>
>
Is experimental/upstream mandatory? I thought it was possible to inject
upstream tarball in upstream branch and merge into master (or
experimental/master).
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: