On 2019-10-25 19:06, Christian Kastner wrote:
Hi, I've become accustomed to the DEP-14 branch names, ie * debian/master instead of master * debian/<release> * upstream/latest instead of upstream * etc. However, the Debian Science Policy Manual currently still maintains master and upstream as a "should" [1]. Has a policy switch to DEP-14 been discussed before? Would anyoneconsider it significant issue if I were to deviate from the current policy?(Just to be clear: I favor standardization and uniformity over individual preference). [1] https://science-team.pages.debian.net/policy/#idm180
Hasn't been discussed. It's marked as DRAFT still at https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/
I've been used to the simpler master, upstream naming. There's the case where upstream updates are made in a single git commit (importing orig from an upstream tarball), so it's contextually clear that the changes made in the repo are specific to the debian packaging. In this case the debian/master prefix becomes a heavy overhead, i.e. makes the branch harder to read (more "annoying", carrying unnecessary text).
It's more clear cut in the alternative case where upstream git is merged into the debian repo, so upstream commits are recorded alongside debian packaging commits. In this case certainly debian/master is the sensible choice.
Drew