Hi, On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Guido Günther wrote: > 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).
Some comments on this recommended layout: 1/ I suggested <vendor>/master rather than <vendor>/unstable (or sid) because it means we don't have to know the default codename/suite used for packaging of new upstream versions (in particular for downstreams) 2/ having multiple upstream/<codename> is bound to never be up-to-date when I do "git checkout debian/experimental && git merge debian/master", upstream/experimental will get out of sync and I won't notice it because my package builds just fine However multiple upstream/* branches can be useful, they should just match real upstream branches... so things like upstream/master, upstream/4.8.x, upstream/4.9.x, etc. 3/ I don't see the need for backports/<codename>, I would rather use debian/wheezy-backports (which actually is just a specific case of <vendor>/<codename> since wheezy-backports is the Codename in the Release file) and security/<codename> is just the continuation of <vendor>/<codename> after a stable release, so again I don't see the need for a specific branch here (and if we really need a separate branch, it can again be <vendor>/<codename>-security) > > - 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. Yes. > > - 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. Anything that needs to be configured is a source of error. I'd rather have gbp do the right thing and pull the information from dpkg-vendor. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- 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/20140816115946.gd13...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com