On Friday, January 24, 2025 9:50:10 AM MST Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Thanks everyone for sharing your viewpoints, it is interesting to read! > > I feel I need to clarify that I am not a native English speaker and my > intent was to write a polite and honest email. It does not say > anywhere that "you must use debian/latest". I am happy with whatever > the convention is, as long as it works, and is universal at least for > new packages. > > I am fine if single-maintainer packages, or closed-team packages do > whatever they want, as it won't affect others (at least immediately), > but not having "best practice" agreed on basic things like git > branches does cause unnecessary friction and time waste for those who > participate in the maintenance of packages in multiple different > teams, at least from my perspective. > > As somebody who is mentoring multiple new maintainers, I see them in > particular having unnecessary hardship from lack of properly agreed > conventions. For the long-term success of Debian, I think that > discussing the best practices and having some things agreed is > valuable, even though running the discussions does take energy.
I agree that we need one standard naming scheme. Based on the email responses, it seems like debian/latest doesn’t convey the appropriate meaning, with something like debian/unstable being more appropriate. Perhaps you should create a vote with MR options (similar to the one you did for DEP-0 naming). Once there is a strong consensus on what the name should be, I would recommend that gbp be reprogrammed to default to that name (I know it is a lot of work), and after that it will probably be fairly easy to to get DEP-14 accepted. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
