On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 17:06 -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Current https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ states that the > default Debian branch name is 'debian/latest': > > > 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. > ... > > The helper tools that do create those repositories should use a command > > like git symbolic-ref > > HEAD refs/heads/debian/latest to update HEAD to point to the desired branch. > > I would be curious to hear why people are *not* adopting 'debian/latest'?
I'm strongly in favor of debian/sid (or debian/unstable, but hey, that's more to type!) over debian/latest as the default git branch. As others have pointed out, debian/latest is confusing -- what does "latest" actually mean? Whereas, debian/sid gives an implicit hint that these are things destined for eventual upload to unstable. If I'm working on something that may not be ready for an upload to unstable, I'll create a different branch which then may or may not get merged into debian/sid. When you also want to track packaging work for experimental, stable updates, and backports it makes even more sense to have the default branch be debian/sid, since you'll also have debian/experimental, debian/bookworm, debian/bookworm-backports, etc in your repo. This pattern has worked well for me thus far, and I intend to keep following it. Mathias
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
