On 02/20/2013 06:20 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > * Figure out whether full-source or debian/ only works better (maybe give us > both repos so we can play with them and discuss the pros and cons from > actual working examples).
What is important, I believe, is that git-buildpackage always works. I've found that having a debian/rules entry called "get-vcs-source" which gets what is needed from upstream works quite nicely. Our workflow is described here: http://openstack.alioth.debian.org/ The idea to use "git archive" was mostly from Julien Danjou. It's very nice because that way, we can use xz compression, instead of what upstream provides (that is, github .zip or .tar.gz, which isn't the best). It's also quite nice because that way, it's possible to tag a specific commit and package that as upstream release. This is mostly why I think using Git is convenient, so I really would like this to be part of the draft. Though this workflow only works if upstream uses Git, which isn't the case. In other cases, probably using a pristine tar branch would do. BTW, I of course agree that it's 100% necessary to make sure we have a unified policy, including on branch names and all. For branch names, I've used the following: - debian-sid - upstream-sid - debian-squeeze - upstream-squeeze - etc. But also: - debian/unstable - debian/experimental - master then I used the tags from the master branch. I think it's ok to have both naming shemes. The important bit, IMO, is that everything is referenced in the debian/gbp.conf so that nobody has to second-guess what to do. Just my 2 cents, and if help is needed for migrating, I hope to be able to be available if you ask. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51244fa6.4020...@debian.org
