Re: Python Policy
On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>I have few comments, but even if I didn't, please wait at least until after
>the weekend (or better: 7 days) so that others have time to review it and
>comment / propose changes.
Fair enough. Of course, it's in a vcs so it's easy to change! :)
>I'd remove this paragraph. Releases can be made via `git archive` and I did
>that many times (assuming pristine-tar will still keep needed data to
>regenerate exact same tarball). If you meant that we don't want to keep
>complete upstream git history, then I agree completely, but I'd made it a
>"should" rather than "must".
What I'm trying to express is the team decision (a couple of debconfs ago) for
pristine-tars rather than releasing from upstream git. I do want to keep the
rationale in the policy doc; it's one sentence and it seems to come up often
enough. Suggestions for better phrasing welcome!
>> +``gbp build-package`` is used to build the package, either as a source
>> package
>
>s/build-package/buildpackage/
Fixed, thanks.
>> +for use with ``pbuilder``, ``sbuild``, etc. or as a binary package directory.
>
>gbp can use sbuild/pbuilder, here's my ~/.gbp.conf:
>
> [buildpackage]
> builder=sbuild
This is the kind of thing that should go in the wiki.
>> +Use the following ``git-dpm`` tag formats for the three branches named above.
>> +Put these lines at the *end* of your ``debian/.git-dpm`` file::
>> +
>> + debianTag="debian/%e%v"
>> + patchedTag="patches/%e%v"
>> + upstreamTag="upstream/%e%u"
>
>I will update `py2dsp --profile dpmt ...` to do that out of the box, but
>even then, it's better to suggest that tool in the wiki only, I guess
I think so. The tag format (and IMHO the mechanism to ensure it) should go in
policy though.
>> +All packages which have been automatically converted from the old
>> Subversion +repository should already have these lines present, but you
>> will need to add +them for any new packages.
>
>that's something for the wiki, not policy, IMO
Sure. I reworded the policy docs a little bit here.
>other comment:
>I'm wondering about something that bit me recently: `gbp pull` instead
>of `git pull` - should we put that into policy or is wiki warning enough?
I think wiki is enough. It is possible to operate with just straight `git
pull` because it will still fetch all commits, but when you switch to one of
the other branches, you'll see that its head is out of date, and git will
prompt you to pull in that branch to update it. `gbp pull` is mostly
convenience.
Cheers,
-Barry
Reply to: