On Jan 24, 2025 22:24, Xiyue Deng <manp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fabio Fantoni <fantonifa...@tiscali.it> writes: > > > > ... > > > > There is also another thing to consider, if you keep a generic one as > > default it always points to the latest version, while a specific one > > might not be the latest version and if the contributors do not check > > well the branches they could risk wasting time (and maybe also the > > reviewers) doing work that does not include work in progress on more > > recent branch or that conflicts with it > > > > I would like to echo on this point. I had worked on a repository that > has the "master" branch marked as the default branch on Salsa, which > lacks many changes compared to the released version. I tried to > manually incorporate those changes, and only later found out that the > actual latest branch is "debian/sid" and it did have everything > up-to-date. (Note that this has since been fixed[1]). I think for new > repository, standardizing on a name (either "debian/latest" or people's > liking) helps identify where the latest work goes to. And as Salvo > pointed out, it's the tag names that indicate where the releases go to, > not the branch names. > > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mozc What you experience shows one thing: having the default branch being set correctly should be what we mandate. NOT the name of it, which could be different than the standards for many reason. Thomas Goirand (zigo)
