On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 01:59:46PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Guido Günther wrote: > > The gbp manual has a recommended branch layout: > > > > > > http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.html#GBP.BRANCH.NAMING > > > > which could serve as a basis. There's plenty of room for improvement, > > e.g. the case where one tracks upstream git isn't yet mentioned (I > > started to follow the above layout also in this case). > > Some comments on this recommended layout: > > 1/ I suggested <vendor>/master rather than <vendor>/unstable (or sid) > because it means we don't have to know the default codename/suite used > for packaging of new upstream versions (in particular for > downstreams)
There is no such default. Most projects I work in package release candidates on debian/experimental, sometimes (depending on e.g. the state of the freeze) also releases. Point releases on the other hand go to debian/wheezy or security/wheezy. This information can't be coded in the branch naming. > 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. (If upstream doesn't use git) matching this to Debian releases is more clear imho. I do acknowledge that you have to keep these in sync (e.g. via git update-ref) but it helps packaging tools to match the release in the changelog to the build and upstream branch. > 3/ I don't see the need for backports/<codename>, I would rather > use debian/wheezy-backports (which actually is just a specific case > of <vendor>/<codename> since wheezy-backports is the Codename in the > Release file) Agreed, but... > > and security/<codename> is just the continuation of <vendor>/<codename> > after a stable release, so again I don't see the need for a specific > branch here (and if we really need a separate branch, it can again > be <vendor>/<codename>-security) There are situations where you have an upload for stable-security and for stable. The review and acceptance of these packages happens by different teams at different points so it's nicer to have them separated. > > > - upstream/<version> > > > (note: we don't need an "upstream" branch, having the good tag for any > > > release that the distros are packaging is enough, it can point to a > > > synthetic commit built with tools like git-import-orig or to a real > > > upstream commit) > > > > Agreed, although having a branch (and recommended naming convention) > > can be useful. > > Yes. > > > > - pkg/<version> > > > (note: git-buildpackage uses debian/<version> but I find this confusing > > > as we then also have the "debian/" prefix for ubuntu or kali uploads, we > > > don't need the vendor prefix as the usual versioning rules embed the > > > downstream distribution name (e.g. 1.0-0ubuntu1) and thus there can't be > > > any conflict on the namespace, keeping a prefix is important to easily > > > differentiate tags created by upstream developers from tags created > > > by packagers) > > > > The tag format is configurable in gbp and I'd expect downstreams to > > use a different name space (e.g. ubuntu/<version>). This makes it > > simpler to tab complete (or delete) certain groups of tags. A patch to > > make the tag message configurable too is waiting to be applied. pkg/ > > is too generic since we'll have more of the RPM support upstreamed > > soonish. > > Anything that needs to be configured is a source of error. I'd rather > have gbp do the right thing and pull the information from dpkg-vendor. Good idea. We could add this as --debian-tag='auto' or similar and make it the default. Cheers, -- Guido -- 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/20140818131403.ga4...@bogon.m.sigxcpu.org
