Re: Playing with git-buildpackage
Hi Stuart,
Great post, thanks for the additional stories. An emerging theme is that it
may be possible to allow for a wider variety of individual preferences if we
establish a set of team-wide conventions, and perhaps work with the helpers so
that they are more interoperable.
What I mean by this is that, let's say you like using straight-up quilt and I
prefer gbp-pq. There's no reason in theory why we couldn't both be happy
using the tools we like, even co-maintaining the same package, as long as the
end result is at least compatible, such that I could review, reproduce, and
consume what you did, and vice versa of course.
What that entails is a survey of the conventions that each helper (or
non-helper workflow) expects, such as tag and branch names. Currently git-dpm
and gbp use different tag names - that seems silly, and we could push both
helpers for convergence. Similarly for default branch names; I think these
are already the same in both helpers, but we would enforce a team convention
that we don't stray from the defaults. Or perhaps we can relax that a bit and
say, you can do something different, but you must document it in README.source
so other teammates can play along nicely.
We do need to be opinionated in the documentation though. Just as the
LibraryStyleGuide has a strong opinion (largely by mentioning, but not
directly documenting the alternatives), our team packaging docs would do the
same. I think that's an easier task though, and needn't be a blocker for team
conversion to git.
DC14 jetlag is kicking in, so I'll leave it at that for now. :)
-Barry
Reply to: