On 1/26/25 01:10, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:22:20 +0100, Fabio Fantoni wrote:Il 24/01/2025 02:06, Otto Kekäläinen ha scritto:Why does the majority of Debian packages still use 'master' or 'debian/master' branch as the main development branch?I think: - because is not the default in toolsYes, and more importantly:- because it is not easy and fast to migrate and if you do it you have to redo the local repository, if you are alone working on the repository it is not a big problem while if you are many it can create inconveniencesIMO this is the real hurdle.
indeed.this has been the main blocker, why I did not update the repositories (at least those, where i'm practically the sole committer).
ideally, there would be a simple script that does all the conversion for me, unlocking/relocking branches and what not:
```sh salsa2dep14 hello-team/helloworld ```(or even better, when run from within my local tree, it would autodetect the salsa repo, and - more importantly - also fix my local repo)
obviously it's not going to be easy to guess the current naming scheme for a given repository (although *mine* are pretty consistent in having only 'master' (or 'main'), 'upstream' and 'pristine-tar')
as for the original subject of this thread: what's actually wrong with 'debian/main' instead of 'debian/latest'? i personally do not really care, and can live with whatever is decided.as for the argument that 'debian/latest' (or even 'debian/experimental') is more to type than 'main': autocompletion usually works for my git branches, so i do not experience this as a practical issue.
gmsdftg IOhannes
OpenPGP_0xB65019C47F7A36F8.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
