Hi, The Wanderer wrote on 31/08/2020: > On 2020-08-31 at 06:49, Paride Legovini wrote: > >> Simon McVittie wrote on 30/08/2020: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 15:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >>> >>>> If I know that the next upstream release breaks backwards >>>> compatitibly and that it will have to mature a long time in >>>> experimental until all other packages are ready, I might start >>>> to package it rigth now in debian/experimental and continue to >>>> use debian/latest for my unstable uploads. >>> >>> If that's your workflow (the same as src:dbus, where versions >>> 1.13.x are a development branch not recommended for general use), >>> then I don't think debian/latest is a good name for that branch, >>> and I'd recommend using debian/unstable for your unstable uploads. >>> >>> Rationale: it seems very confusing if a branch with "latest" in its >>> name does not contain the newest available version :-) >> >> +1, moreover I find that "latest" does not convey the idea of >> something that is in development: I tend to think about it in terms >> of "latest release" or "latest version", something that is set >> already. >> >> This is fine with uptream/latest, as we import the latest *released* >> version of the upstream source, not the current work in progress >> tip. > > I'd tend to agree with this. > >> Personally I'd prefer 'debian/devel': clearly the branch where >> development happens. > > But what about cases where what would have been the 'master' branch > tracks what's in e.g. sid and is being temporarily left to sit, except > for bugfixes et cetera, while actual development happens somewhere else > (e.g., in experimental)?
In this case the current DEP14 proposal from Raphael allows to have two permanent branches: - debian/unstable - debian/experimental and no debian/latest. This seems to fit your case. I proposed a slightly different approach that would allow the debian/unstable and debian/devel branches to coexist, see the other email I just sent. Cheers, Paride
