On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Well, I have nothing against derivative/downstream distros, but if > you're about to do a new DEP, please consider Debian first. In such > case, debian/unstable makes a lot more sense than just debian/master. > Like I wrote in another post, "master" doesn't express anything.
master does express something to people who are using git, it's the main development trunk. debian/unstable also doesn't follow <debian>/<codename> because unstable's codename is sid. And I really mean that <codename> is a better choice than <suite> (e.g. unstable, testing, stable). That said, I don't have hard feelings against something else than debian/master. > > 2/ having multiple upstream/<codename> is bound to never be up-to-date > > when I do "git checkout debian/experimental && git merge > > debian/master", upstream/experimental will get out of sync and I > > won't notice it because my package builds just fine > > > > However multiple upstream/* branches can be useful, they should > > just match real upstream branches... so things like upstream/master, > > upstream/4.8.x, upstream/4.9.x, etc. > > All of this is error prone. Using upstream tags and merging them rather > than branches avoid troubles. I have yet to see a case where using > upstream tags wasn't practical. We are speaking of the cases where we use git-import-orig to build the upstream branch(es)... Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140817070057.ga24...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
