On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 02:12:08PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > David explained: > > > Hi David, there's a version discrepancy here. upstream-unstable for > > > x11proto-randr in fact refers to v1.2 and seems to be pulled from > > > upstream head, while debian-unstable is 1.1.2. > > > > Right, you'll find this is true for all of the packages. In discussion with > > Thierry, we realized that it would be a ton of work to figure out the exact > > upstream version for each package, and for relatively little payoff. Since > > we're nearing release time for Xorg, we'll be syncing to the latest from > > upstream anyway, so the upstream-unstable branches should fall in line as > > we update for 7.2. This'll save both time and effort, we both agreed it was > > worthwhile. > > Oh OK. So long as it's known and deliberate, I'm happy :) > > But I notice upstream-etch does not exist either. How will we be > generating these branches, from upstream or from current > debian-unstable deleting the debian directory? I'm assuming here we > were planning to use upstream-etch branches. Just asking out of > curiosity, my main interest is in the future, I'll start creating > [upstream,debian]-experimental branches soon (unless etch gets released > before I get the chance).
I hadn't really thought about that actually :-) My feeling is that we don't need an upstream-etch branch unless we need to do specific updates for that package after the release. So for that, we can just create the branch from the specific commit that's relevant for etch. Or else just forgo the upstream-etch branch all together and just use it for lenny, when the repos are in sync. Either way is fine by me. As for the -experimental branches, fire away once you're free. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
