Hi,
Whilst I really welcome progress on this DEP, as I believe it's really
important to codify best practice, and that's what you're trying to do
:-),
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 01:01:09AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> proposing the changes below to DEP-14. Basically it replaces debian/master
>
On 2020-08-29 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> +URL: https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/
[...]
| When a package targets any release that is not one of the usual
| development releases (i.e. stable releases or a frozen development
| release), it should be prepared in a branch named with the
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:32:36AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2020, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> There are arguments both ways here but as you're the person driving
> >> this, I'm still keen to hear more from you about why debian/unstable is
> >> to be preferred over
Hello,
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2020, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> There are arguments both ways here but as you're the person driving
>> this, I'm still keen to hear more from you about why debian/unstable is
>> to be preferred over debian/sid giving the existing convention
>> established by dgit. Thanks.
>
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020, Sean Whitton wrote:
> There are arguments both ways here but as you're the person driving
> this, I'm still keen to hear more from you about why debian/unstable is
> to be preferred over debian/sid giving the existing convention
> established by dgit. Thanks.
I don't
Hello Raphael,
On Sat 05 Sep 2020 at 04:31PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Raphael,
>
> On Sun 30 Aug 2020 at 10:02AM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
>> I think we should recommend debian/sid because for some years dgit has
>> been generating branches called dgit/sid. I think it would smooth the
Richard Laager wrote on 06/09/2020:
On 8/31/20 8:53 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I already agreed that we can tweak the wording to document that it's
I don't think the people on the list saw that message, as it had an
attachment. It's below (unabridged).
OK to use debian/unstable as default
On 9/7/20 5:33 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020, Richard Laager wrote:
>> I do not see why we have to prohibit occasional uploads to experimental
>> from debian/unstable. If this is permitted, then that also avoids the
>> busywork of creating debian/experimental in that scenario.
>
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020, Richard Laager wrote:
> > OK to use debian/unstable as default branch even if you are not a
> > complex package that require multiple branches, provided that you will
> > not use debian/unstable when you decide to push something to
> > experimental.
>
> I do not see why we
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020, The Wanderer wrote:
> As long as this is being patched anyway, how about fixing the "others
> vendors" duplicate pluralization? I'd suggest either "but all other
> vendors should do so" or "as all others should do", but other variations
> are possible and I don't have a strong
(Resending without the attachment for posterity sinte the message didn't
make it to -devel, but I also had no bounce notifying me that it was
discarded...)
Hello,
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020, Richard Laager wrote:
> You could use debian/experimental all the time and then merge down to
> debian/unstable
Hello Raphael,
On Sun 30 Aug 2020 at 10:02AM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I think we should recommend debian/sid because for some years dgit has
> been generating branches called dgit/sid. I think it would smooth the
> integration between branches on salsa and branches on dgit.debian.org
> if
On 8/31/20 8:53 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I already agreed that we can tweak the wording to document that it's
I don't think the people on the list saw that message, as it had an
attachment. It's below (unabridged).
> OK to use debian/unstable as default branch even if you are not a
> complex
On 2020-09-04 at 11:42, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> So here's my counter proposal:
>
> --- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
> +++ b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
> @@ -201,12 +201,16 @@ Native packages
>
> The above conventions mainly cater to the case where the upstream
> developers and the package maintainers are
Raphael Hertzog wrote on 04/09/2020:
Hi,
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
As the name of the development branch is not specified anymore, should dep14
ask for it to be the repository default branch? Otherwise there's no safe
I took this as granted. But maybe we should make it
Hi,
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
> As the name of the development branch is not specified anymore, should dep14
> ask for it to be the repository default branch? Otherwise there's no safe
I took this as granted. But maybe we should make it explicit, yes. I also
clarified that
Raphael Hertzog wrote on 29/08/2020:
@@ -200,7 +204,7 @@ developers and the package maintainers are not the same set
of persons.
When upstream is Debian (or one of its derivative), the upstream vendor
should not use the usual `/` prefix (but all others vendors should
-do so). The main
Raphael Hertzog wrote on 31/08/2020:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
>> A tl;dr version of my idea is: let's remove the special treatment for
>> development releases, treating e.g. debian/unstable like a stable
>> release. Optionally use a 'debian/devel' branch for
Hi,
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
> A tl;dr version of my idea is: let's remove the special treatment for
> development releases, treating e.g. debian/unstable like a stable
> release. Optionally use a 'debian/devel' branch for development work.
> The only "workflow" bit is: if you
Raphael Hertzog wrote on 31/08/2020:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
>> What I propose is to require for dep14 compliance that uploads to
>> are to be cut from debian/ branches, unless
>> is experimental. This allows to checkout the "maintainer
>> view" of a given (nonexperimental)
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
> What I propose is to require for dep14 compliance that uploads to
> are to be cut from debian/ branches, unless
> is experimental. This allows to checkout the "maintainer
> view" of a given (nonexperimental) version of a package by knowing only:
>
>
Hi,
The Wanderer wrote on 31/08/2020:
> On 2020-08-31 at 06:49, Paride Legovini wrote:
>
>> Simon McVittie wrote on 30/08/2020:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>>
If I know that the next upstream release breaks backwards
compatitibly and that it
Raphael Hertzog wrote on 30/08/2020:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020, Richard Laager wrote:
>> That said, I do understand we give a lot of deference to developers'
>> workflows. So I have no objection to DEP-14 supporting this workflow
>> with debian/latest. But I would like to see it (debian/latest)
>>
Hi,
For me, the one branch type of development is closer to my style. I'm
that type of guy who can be easily distracted by quite anything and
therefore can easily forget things. Luckily, in most cases I have
automatic alerts and habits preventing disasters to happen, but there
are cases when it's
On 2020-08-31 at 06:49, Paride Legovini wrote:
> Simon McVittie wrote on 30/08/2020:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>
>>> If I know that the next upstream release breaks backwards
>>> compatitibly and that it will have to mature a long time in
>>>
On 8/31/20 7:49 AM, Paride Legovini wrote:
> Simon McVittie wrote on 30/08/2020:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> If I know that the next upstream release
>>> breaks backwards compatitibly and that it will have to mature a long time
>>> in experimental until
Simon McVittie wrote on 30/08/2020:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> If I know that the next upstream release
>> breaks backwards compatitibly and that it will have to mature a long time
>> in experimental until all other packages are ready, I might start to
>>
Hi,
From my point of view (newbie point of view) it's more natural use the
default branch as my "target" codename. I mean, if I'm working on a
package that I will upload to unstable I hope use debian/unstable branch
for that. If I want to test or for any reason upload package to
experimental (or
Geert Stappers writes:
> On 2020-08-30 at 14:46, Richard Laager wrote:
>> Using debian/sid makes the branch name inconsistent with
>> debian/changelog, which traditionally uses "unstable" not "sid".
> There no need to have consistency between a git branch name and
> debian/changelog saying
Richard Laager writes:
> On 8/29/20 5:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The problem in my case with not putting a branch name in Vcs-Git is
>> that, for packages for which I'm also upstream, the default branch in
>> the repository named in that header is the upstream development branch,
>> which
On Sun, 2020-08-30 at 14:52 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-08-30 at 14:46, Richard Laager wrote:
[...]
> > (because there is no character code name for
> > experimental AFAIK).
>
> I thought the same at one point, but in fact, there is: it's called
> rc-buggy.
>
>
* Simon McVittie: " Re: RFC: Final update of DEP-14 on naming of git packaging
branches" (Sun, 30 Aug 2020 15:02:35 +0100):
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If I know that the next upstream release
> > breaks backwards compatitibly and that it will have to
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 02:52:33PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-08-30 at 14:46, Richard Laager wrote:
> > On 8/30/20 12:02 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, at 4:01 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
> >>> index
On 2020-08-30 at 14:46, Richard Laager wrote:
> On 8/30/20 12:02 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
>> Hello Raphael,
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, at 4:01 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> diff --git a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
>>> index 0316fe1..beb96ea 100644
>>> --- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
On 8/30/20 12:02 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Raphael,
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, at 4:01 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> diff --git a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
>> index 0316fe1..beb96ea 100644
>> --- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
>> +++ b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
>> +In the interest of
Hello Raphael,
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, at 4:01 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> diff --git a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
> index 0316fe1..beb96ea 100644
> --- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
> +++ b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
> +In the interest of homogeneity and of clarity, we recommend the use of
>
I think I now have a better handle on how/why I disagree with the DEP-14
recommendation language.
On 8/30/20 8:36 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020, Richard Laager wrote:
>> That said, I do understand we give a lot of deference to developers'
>> workflows. So I have no objection to
On 8/29/20 5:16 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 15:07:07 -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
>> However, this is still saying that one should prefer debian/latest over
>> debian/unstable, and that debian/unstable is (sort of) only for use when
>> you're also uploading to experimental.
On 8/29/20 5:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The problem in my case with not putting a branch name in Vcs-Git is that,
> for packages for which I'm also upstream, the default branch in the
> repository named in that header is the upstream development branch, which
> contains no Debian packaging files
On 2020-08-30 at 10:02, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Rationale: it seems very confusing if a branch with "latest" in its
> name does not contain the newest available version :-)
>
> (debian/master didn't have that problem because it's named by
> analogy to the "master" branch used in upstream git
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> If I know that the next upstream release
> breaks backwards compatitibly and that it will have to mature a long time
> in experimental until all other packages are ready, I might start to
> package it rigth now in debian/experimental
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020, Richard Laager wrote:
> That said, I do understand we give a lot of deference to developers'
> workflows. So I have no objection to DEP-14 supporting this workflow
> with debian/latest. But I would like to see it (debian/latest)
> recharacterized as the alternate approach
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 01:01:09AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> following the recent discussions of June and of the last days, I'm
> proposing the changes below to DEP-14. Basically it replaces debian/master
> with debian/latest for all the reasons already discussed earlier. And
>
Richard Laager writes:
> On 8/29/20 3:33 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think the primary thing that bothers me about this workflow is that
>> experimental becomes an ephemeral branch, which appears and disappears
>> based on the vagaries of the release cycle.
> To me, that feels like the branch
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 15:07:07 -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> However, this is still saying that one should prefer debian/latest over
> debian/unstable, and that debian/unstable is (sort of) only for use when
> you're also uploading to experimental.
The way I think of it phrases this a bit
On 8/29/20 3:33 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the primary thing that bothers me about this workflow is that
> experimental becomes an ephemeral branch, which appears and disappears
> based on the vagaries of the release cycle.
To me, that feels like the branch is an accurate representation of
Seconded. Thanks!
Raphael Hertzog dijo [Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 01:01:09AM +0200]:
> Hello,
>
> following the recent discussions of June and of the last days, I'm
> proposing the changes below to DEP-14. Basically it replaces debian/master
> with debian/latest for all the reasons already discussed
Richard Laager writes:
> When I last brought this up [1], Russ Allbery said that debian/latest
> was desirable (to him, at least) because, "My normal use of experimental
> does not involve maintaining unstable and experimental branches
> simultaneously. I essentially never do that; instead, I
On 8/28/20 6:01 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> following the recent discussions of June and of the last days, I'm
> proposing the changes below to DEP-14. Basically it replaces debian/master
> with debian/latest for all the reasons already discussed earlier. And
> it says that debian/unstable is
> And it also marks the proposal as ACCEPTED given that it has gained
> traction over the years and that we didn't feel the need to make
> significant change to it.
+1 to this and the other changes.
I believe we will be able to easily perform the branch naming changes
under the pkg-sec team.
Le samedi, 29 août 2020, 01.01:09 h CEST Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> following the recent discussions of June and of the last days, I'm
> proposing the changes below to DEP-14. Basically it replaces debian/master
> with debian/latest for all the reasons already discussed earlier. And
>
Le 28/08/2020 à 19:01, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Basically it replaces debian/master
with debian/latest for all the reasons already discussed earlier.
[…]
Let me know your thoughts:
diff --git a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
index 0316fe1..beb96ea 100644
--- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
Hello,
following the recent discussions of June and of the last days, I'm
proposing the changes below to DEP-14. Basically it replaces debian/master
with debian/latest for all the reasons already discussed earlier. And
it says that debian/unstable is preferred over debian/sid.
And it also marks
53 matches
Mail list logo
