On 08/25/2011 02:30 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 08/25/2011 01:59 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: >> This is one of the things we should discuss. I was talking about adding >> the packaging branches to the main repo - so master would be the actual >> VC used by the project devs. It would look like: >> master - main development target >> pristine-tarball - pristine-tarball diff information >> upstream-* - packaging 'upstream branch' >> debian-* - debian packaging branches > > By all means, *please* avoid "master" as a branch name. Call it > bleeding-edge/unstable/testing/devel if you want, but simply not > "master". :)
Well - sorry - I think we're speaking different words here. When I say "main development target" - I mean the master branch of what is github.com/openstack/project. I am _not_ convinced that this is the right way to go, and having packaging be a completely separate repo might be the right choice. BUT - if we do integrate the two into one repo, then the branch that the devs work against will be called master. Full stop. > What would be the use of "pristine-tarball" ? Prepare .tar.gz for > generic distributions, like RPMs or let's say Gentoo? Nope. It helps in generation of tarballs for the debian packaging too. Check out the --git-pristine-tar option to git-buildpackage. It's pretty cool... I think you'll like it. >>> Unless I didn't understand what you mean by "one-off" (please elaborate >>> so that we avoid confusions), if backports are to be uploaded to >>> backports.debian.org, then we'd better take care that they are >>> maintained correctly. So having a branch for it sounds like a >>> requirement to me. I wouldn't take the responsibility to upload to >>> backports.d.o if we don't take it seriously. I'm already feeling quite >>> bad that I've left the current packages in the air without fixes, with >>> the build process totally broken... :( >> >> Sorry - I should indicate here. (forgive me if I sound snarky) - I don't >> really personally care about backports.d.o - it's the backported library >> packages that go into the openstack repo I care about. >> >> BUT - I may have been unclear here - I think there should definitely be >> a repo and it should match the standards above, I just don't think it >> needs to have a branch that's related to upstream VC. >> >> Monty > > In that case, we could maintain the upstream-*-backports and > debian-*-backports branch in Alioth. I believe maintaining a Git for > what we release in *.debian.org is always good (eg: backports.d.o or > just normal main). That's what is cool with the distributed part of Git: > it is easy to do that, and merge from one repo to another. That actually might make sense. Let's discuss that idea further. Monty _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp