On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:16:01PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > while git is the most popular VCS for packaging, there's no clear rules > on what you can expect in a random git packaging repository listed > in Vcs-Git. I would like to fix this so that: > - we can extract more useful data from the git repositories > - we can more easily share our git repositories with upstreams > and downstreams > - we start to converge on some conventions even though we might > continue to use different git helper tools > > I want to use the DEP process for this. But before I can write a first > draft I would like to have your ideas of what we should include > in such a document. > > Some initial questions and possible answers: > > - how do we name the various branches? > > - <vendor>/master for the main development trunk (aka unstable in Debian) > - <vendor>/<codename> for alternate versions
The gbp manual has a recommended branch layout: http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.html#GBP.BRANCH.NAMING which could serve as a basis. There's plenty of room for improvement, e.g. the case where one tracks upstream git isn't yet mentioned (I started to follow the above layout also in this case). > The goal here is to be able to host in the same repository the branches for > multiple cooperating distributions (at least so that downstream can > clone the debian respository and inject their branches next to the > debian branches). > > - how do we tag the upstream releases? > > - upstream/<version> > (note: we don't need an "upstream" branch, having the good tag for any > release that the distros are packaging is enough, it can point to a > synthetic commit built with tools like git-import-orig or to a real > upstream commit) Agreed, although having a branch (and recommended naming convention) can be useful. > - how do we tag the package releases? > > - pkg/<version> > (note: git-buildpackage uses debian/<version> but I find this confusing > as we then also have the "debian/" prefix for ubuntu or kali uploads, we > don't need the vendor prefix as the usual versioning rules embed the > downstream distribution name (e.g. 1.0-0ubuntu1) and thus there can't be > any conflict on the namespace, keeping a prefix is important to easily > differentiate tags created by upstream developers from tags created > by packagers) The tag format is configurable in gbp and I'd expect downstreams to use a different name space (e.g. ubuntu/<version>). This makes it simpler to tab complete (or delete) certain groups of tags. A patch to make the tag message configurable too is waiting to be applied. pkg/ is too generic since we'll have more of the RPM support upstreamed soonish. Cheers, -- Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815191055.ga2...@bogon.m.sigxcpu.org
