On 07/01/25 at 11:53 +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > * Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> [250107 08:39]: > > 1/ https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/9 > > (see mr9.patch attached if you don't want to look up on the web) > > > > We had a couple of revisions already and it seems fine to me to merge > > this, if anyone has valid objections (i.e. with good rationale), now is > > the time to raise them. You might want to look the closed comments > > on the above merge request to see whether your concerns have been > > discussed already. > > > > This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs" as the > > name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also > > documents the possibility to merge the upstream commits in the > > "upstream/latest" branch (as proposed by gbp import-orig > > --upstream-vcs-tag) when your workflow is to import the upstream tarball. > > The name for the remote could easily have been "upstream" like > various packages are already set up and documented today. But > apparently gbp picked the IMO unwieldly name in the meantime? > > Meh. But what's done is done, I guess. We'll see who will adopt that > name.
Maybe before moving it to ACCEPTED, it would be useful to design a dashboard of some kind to track adoption, not just in tooling, but in actual packages? This could probably be built as an extension to vcswatch. Lucas
