Re: names of distribution-branches in the git repository
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:15:27PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> On 22-11-2010, Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> wrote:
> > On 22/11/2010 14:15, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> >>
> >> May I suggest my own summary, about this feature (trying to solve
> >> conflicts between all opinions):
> >
> > I think that we all agreed on Stéphane's proposal (at least, those
> > who raised their voice here). Didn't we? :)
>
> The only thing, I had against Stéphane proposal was about */upstream.
> But as you see in the summary, I change my mind about that.
I didn't.
All changes to the upstream branch are local, and are not supposed to be
pushed to the central repository (which usually means that they are
only temporary and should not even be comitted). When I do changes
on upstream then it is to try changes, and when I am satisfied I
put them into a quilt patch on the the debian branch and undo them on
my upstream branch.
I see that a separate upstream branch is useful in case you are tracking
different versions of upstream than in sid, but this is not necessarily
the case. In fact I am using experimental mostly in situations like
in the current freeze when the upstream version is mostly the same in
sid as in experimental. And I do not see why I should be forced to
have seperate upstream branch in cases like this.
-Ralf.
Reply to: