Hi, On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:04:32PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> wrote: [..snip..] > > To add to the bikeshed: I like path like separation in git: > > > > upstream/filtered/latest > > > > or (since upstream is somewhat redundant): > > > > I don’t feel that “upstream” is redundant. I think the contents of a branch > should be obvious from the name. > > > > > > filtered/latest > > pristine/latest > > > > The “pristine” namespace could easily be confused with “pristine-tar”, so > I’d prefer avoiding that name altogether if possible. > > > > > > this would also allow to retain upstream/ with the original meaning for > > > > Wait, now I’m confused. Isn’t “upstream” the same as “upstream/latest”? > What “original meaning” are you referring to? :)
Current default in gbp is "upstream" for the upstream branch. Switching the default to anything starting with upstream/ causes problems for people using the current default since the name "upstream" is already used. While this can be fixed up locally by gbp it also requires to move the the branch "upstream" out of the way on the _remote_ side since otherwise pushing anything into the "upstream/" namespace will fail otherwise. Cheers, -- Guido > > > > existing projects and would make the switch of defaults easier since > > gbp's current default upstream does not conflict with upstream/latest. > > > > Cheers, > > -- Guido > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Michael
