Dear Jonas, On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Seems you forgot to push the tag created when you added the new >> > upstream tarball. Please do "git push --tags". >> >> Ah. I forgot it. >> I pushed it. > > Yes, I got it now. Thanks! :-) > > ...but then I notice that commits are missing from other branches. > > I suspect that you are only tracking the main "master" branch, probably > because you did a simple "git clone ..." initially. > > First, please push your changes to "upstream" and "pristine-tar" > branches. There is two ways to do that: a) if you are certain that you > have not created any new custom branches locally, do "git push --all". > Alternatively (assuming your remote is named "origin" as is the default) > do "git push origin upstream; git push origin pristine-tar" to > explicitly push only those branches.
Sorry, I pushed it. $ git push --all --snip-- Total 4 (delta 1), reused 0 (delta 0) To ssh://[email protected]/git/collab-maint/pandoc.git 4f0319c..650d286 pristine-tar -> pristine-tar 6ac52ff..b27a86d upstream -> upstream > Then, when all changes in all branches of your git are pushed to our > shared git, I recommend that you change your git to properly track all > three branches - so that in the future "git status" checks them all and > only "git push" is needed to push all branches. You can explicitly do > some special git commands or manually edit .git/config directly - or you > can do the easy approach: erase your local git and make a fresh clone > like this: > > gbp-clone --pristine-tar git.debian.org:/git/collab-maint/pandoc Sorry, I don't know gbp-clone. #orz Now I use the copy with below command. gbp-clone --pristine-tar [email protected]:/git/collab-maint/pandoc >> > Please always check if a package you want to work on contains a >> > README.source. This one contains one, and one of the things is that >> > I request that you bump the md5sum when updating upstream source. >> >> I can't understand it... >> Can I write md5sum on the DEB_UPSTREAM_TARBALL_MD5 line by my hand? > > Yes. I changed and pushed it. > Ideally CDBS would support other types of checksums too, and support > consulting a separate file potentially containing checksums from > multiple releases (so that an upstream maintained checksum file could be > fetched and used as-is). Suggestions on how to model that (choice of > filenames etc.) is much appreciated. I don't expect actual implentation > to require much effort. Umm,,, I will try to think about better method. Is the "support other types of checksums" documented? >> Umm...? I am confused... >> Should I keep your debian/rules style? (a) >> Or challenge to change it to the style include {debhelper,hlibrary}.mk >> 2 line only? (b) >> >> I think (b) is simple and easy to use. >> But if (b) blocks our collab-maintenance, I choose (a). > > You are welcome to touch the rules _file_ but I ask you to not change > the _style_ within the file without prior discussion. OK. I choose your style on pandoc package. > Regarding your concrete suggestion to minimize the file to only include > {debhelper,hlibrary}.mk and nothing more, I dislike that: Each of the > pieces that you then remove cause loss of (to me) nice packaging > features. > > That said, I am interested in discussing further, if you like. If you > fail to see the benefit of some of the added parts, then I am happy to > elaborate on that. And if you understand what the parts does but feel > those features are perhaps superfluous then please do elaborate > yourself. :-) I can't think many problems, would like to implement better checksum rules file. :) Best regards, -- Kiwamu Okabe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caevx6dmumfn2xddek2k4vupq5p_znrgzrbjexktvv4mkqji...@mail.gmail.com
