On 08/16/2014 07:59 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 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)
Well, I have nothing against derivative/downstream distros, but if you're about to do a new DEP, please consider Debian first. In such case, debian/unstable makes a lot more sense than just debian/master. Like I wrote in another post, "master" doesn't express anything. > 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. All of this is error prone. Using upstream tags and merging them rather than branches avoid troubles. I have yet to see a case where using upstream tags wasn't practical. > 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) Right! :) Thomas -- 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/53f023e7.90...@debian.org
