tho...@goirand.fr writes: > 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.
Indeed. Though IIRC the default branch was not a native git concept until 2.28, so user of older git may still get confused. > NOT the name of it, which could be different than the standards for > many reason. I think for new package repositories having a recommended name is a good thing to avoid confusions like this, which I think DEP-14 was for. > > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) > > -- Regards, Xiyue Deng
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
