Hi, > > > 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.
This is what git-buildpackage already has. Nothing stops people from suggesting other names. I remember Guido mentioning at one point he is open to change it or to make it configurable. Personally I feel that just picking a reasonably good name and sticking to it for now is the best return on investment for Debian. The 'upstreamvcs' is reasonably good and unambiguous on what it means, and it won't get mixed up with `upstream/*` tag names. > 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. I am a huge fan of trends.debian.net - thanks Lucas for maintaining it! I filed https://salsa.debian.org/lucas/debian-trends/-/issues/5 in case somebody contributing to trends.debian.net could some day take up this task.. I also posted stats of the current situation there, but it is based on gbp.conf files and not representative of all git projects.
