Re: Git migration schedule
Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> writes:
> My personal opinion is that we should live with the current git workflow
> recommendations for a while and see how it goes. If there are things we can
> improve on (e.g. DEP-14 compatibility) then sure, let's discuss the pros and
> cons, but let's not change things right now. I'd like to see how it works in
> practice for a while.
I suspect some packages may end up needing DEP-14 names for security
fixes and backports.
The problem here is with the naming of the upstream branches is
different. Although security updates and backports are unlikely to use
new upstream versions, git-dpm appears to use upstream-<branchname> as
the upstream branch name if the debian branch is not master. Either
should be upstream or upstream/<version>.
Also see: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801666
I don't (yet) see a significant problem with using master instead of
debian/master, unless you want to maintain seperate branches for Ubuntu
and Debian packages (a level of complexity I prefer not to think too
much about right now...)
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: