Re: Transition away from git-dpm was: Re: Adopting OpenStack packages
On 03/06/2017 09:25 PM, Brian May wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> writes:
>
>> Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion. I'm interested in the
>> views of DPMT members with gbp pq experience. What's the consensus about
>> branch naming (all I know is for git-dpm, it was pretty hard wired)?
>
> I tend to think that branching will easier with git pq. I seem to
> remember some maintainers having problems with non-standard branch names
> under git dpm. So one valid reason for not adopting different branches
> will no longer apply.
>
> I personally think that DEP14 would be a good idea. I think the only
> difference people would notice is that master is renamed to
> debian/master.
>
> We would need to be careful though, having both a master and a
> debian/master - even during transition planning - could be
> confusing. Which one do I update? Probably no way to mark a branch read
> only on alioth either (?).
>
> After the transition, what happens to the master branch? Do we delete
> it?
I *very much* vouch for the dep14 style of branch names. I've been using
this for years. Maybe some will remember that's what I suggested in
Debconf portland where we discussed switching to Git, and for the first
time, agree on it. At the time, mostly everyone didn't like the idea
though. I'm glad it looks like mind sets have moved to the direction I
consider the best.
There's 2 issues with calling the Debian packaging branch "master".
First, it may conflict with an eventual upstream branch also called
"master" (for those who like me enjoy doing a checkout of it). Second,
the name "master" doesn't express anything, while "debian/unstable" is
very much self-explanatory.
I prefer if we use debian/unstable rather than debian/master though, so
it is more explicit where we upload that branch. Also, it'd be wise to
set that branch as default when cloning the repository. ie we shall ran
on Alioth:
git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/debian/unstable
so that debian/unstable becomes the default branch. This has a good
chance to avoid confusion between the old "master" (ie: git-dpm) branch
and the new DEP14 style that we would adopt.
When doing this, we should also make sure to clearly self-document this
using:
# cat debian/gbp.conf
[DEFAULT]
debian-branch = debian/unstable
Last, I would consider it a nice improvement. Not a critical one. So if
others feel like we should keep the git-dpm old layout to avoid
confusing people, I wouldn't mind so much.
Your thoughts?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: