Re: names of distribution-branches in the git repository
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:01:58AM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 08:53 AM, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> You can use "experimental/master" and "upstream" branches. But, if you
> do that, then other members of the team will have to figure out that
> "experimental/upstream" is missing because "experimental/master" is
> using the same version as sid's. So, having "experimental/upstream" is
> team friendly since it clearly shows what you are doing. And since
> branches are really cheap in Git, I don't understand why this bothers
> you that much. You'll have to tell gbp that master branch is now
> "experimental/master" anyway… So why not doing the same for "upstream"?
I do not want to have another branch lying around that is not necessary,
and I do not want to have to care for creating it in he first place. This
only makes things more and more complicated.
-Ralf.
Reply to: