Gioele Barabucci <gio...@debian.org> writes: > On 24/01/25 09:30, Gard Spreemann wrote: >>> I would be curious to hear why people are *not* adopting 'debian/latest'? >> I call the branch debian/sid simply because sid is already what we call >> the distribution where we by default do work on the "latest stuff". > > You mean debian/unstable, don't you? :P > > "unstable" is what is written in changelog and "debian/unstable" is DEP-14 > compatible: > >> In Debian this means that uploads to unstable and experimental should >> be prepared either in the debian/latest branch or respectively in the >> debian/unstable and debian/experimental branches. > debian/latest = UNRELEASED (may be unstable or experimental) > > debian/unstable = This will be uploaded to unstable.
I appreciate the distinction being pointed out. For stuff that is not clearly slated for upload anywhere, but still meant to be shared through git, I usually use a descriptive name for whatever the purpose of the branch is (debian/testing-out-new-major-upstream-version-x, whatever). Either that branch gets abandoned, or it gets merged into debian/sid (and uploaded to unstable). This has probably been discussed a lot already, so sorry if I'm rehashing tired points, but I don't really see the point of a consistent name for a branch that may or may not ever feature uploads anywhere. Surely the goal is an upload to unstable – hence my thinking when calling the main branch debian/sid (or debian/unstable, as you point out earlier). Best, Gard
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
