Hi, Am Sonntag 14 März 2010 15:58:21 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > I had a look, and wonder: Why use unusual branch naming? > > If upstream code was called "upstream" (not "upstream-dist") and our > packaging was called "master" (not "debian") as is the default for > git-buildpackage then checking out initially would be as easy as this: The debian git follows the upstream one. I.e. master is upstreams cornucopia repository and I extract the subdir to the upstream-dist branch etc.
> gbp-clone git.debian.org:/git/pkg-fso/libfsoresource > > Would you mind me renaming those branches (causing all current > subscribers of the git to re-clone, but better now than later)? As we will follow upstreams git for a while still, I would like to keep the branches as is for now. With this layout it's possible to make scnapshots with relative ease [merge master to "programname"-branch, merge "prog"-branch to upstream-dist, run autogen, merge to debian, update build files, build]. Also this helps visualize where each one comes from. I.e. debian branch on top of upstream etc. > Also, would you mind me adding some of the latest cool CDBS additions to > the packaging, like get-orig-source handling and copyright-check? that would be cool :-). The git repos should be writeable for pkg-fso members. Heiko _______________________________________________ pkg-fso-maint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-fso-maint
