On Jan 07, Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> wrote: > This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs" as the > name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also Like many others, this looks like a gratuitous change for change's sake. Countless packages have been using "upstream" for years, but apparently it is not perfect enough and somebody had to invent a new name.
I still believe that this is trying to codify a lot of pratices (e.g. the obsession with pristine-tar) which are not widely accepted. This DEP is the result of an echo chamber and is the consensus of the few people debating it on salsa. > +The codename can also be prefixed with the version so that branch names > +are correctly sorted by age of the target release in the list of available > +branches. Examples: `debian/12-bookworm`, `debian/11-bullseye`, > +`ubuntu/24.04-noble`, `ubuntu/22.04-jammy`. So to gain optional sorting now you lose the benefit of being able to mechanically determine the branch name? This is beyond silly. > +unlikely to clash with the packaging branches. Despite this, it is good > +practice to not push any upstream branch to the packaging repository so as > +to not confuse anyone about the purpose of the Git repository. WTF? I say instead that in the modern worlds it is a best practice to have the packaging repository as a branch of the upstream repository. Again, trying to promote personal preferences to a standard. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
