Simon McVittie writes ("Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories"): > I agree that the expected contents of the branches are far more > important than their names. Unfortunately, while acting as "the Debian > expert" for Debian derivatives at $day_job, I keep finding that the > answer to "OK, I've cloned a package's git repository, I know what code > change I want, now do I change the upstream source or drop a patch into > debian/patches or what?" is "... I can't actually answer that until you > tell me which source package you're working on".
This is indeed a very big problem. It is why I am working on dgit. I don't think this problem, of a mass of different branch structures, is going to go away any time soon. Simply because people don't seem able to agree. My answer is to create a parallel universe in which the branch structure is known. The maintainers of each package choose whether to use the dgit `universe', in which case certain basic assumptions can be relied on, or run their own `universe' in which case they can structure it however they like. Luckily git makes it fairly easy to transport changes from one universe into another. Ian. -- 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/21610.8498.518053.339...@chiark.greenend.org.uk