On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Guido Günther <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:25:09AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > • branch “upstream/latest” tracks an upstream branch, e.g. remote > > > “upstream”, branch “master”. > > > > > > • branch “upstream/latest-filtered” contains a filtered version of that > > > branch, whose commits would be tagged e.g. upstream/1.0+dfsg1 so that > > > gbp-buildpackage picks the correct commit. > > > > > > I think that complies with DEP14 as good as possible, and is still > > > reasonably clear for casual users. Thoughts? > > > > I would use "upstream-filtered/latest" for the latter. You have clean > > namespace separation. But this still changes the assumption about > > upstream/latest (non-filtered now) so it needs a broader discussion IMO. > > To add to the bikeshed: I like path like separation in git: > > upstream/filtered/latest > > or (since upstream is somewhat redundant): > I don’t feel that “upstream” is redundant. I think the contents of a branch should be obvious from the name. > > filtered/latest > pristine/latest > The “pristine” namespace could easily be confused with “pristine-tar”, so I’d prefer avoiding that name altogether if possible. > > this would also allow to retain upstream/ with the original meaning for > Wait, now I’m confused. Isn’t “upstream” the same as “upstream/latest”? What “original meaning” are you referring to? :) > existing projects and would make the switch of defaults easier since > gbp's current default upstream does not conflict with upstream/latest. > > Cheers, > -- Guido > -- Best regards, Michael
