On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 02:02:46PM +0100, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > On 28/01/25 13:57, Marvin Renich wrote: > > I strongly urge you to heed Colin's suggestion. Have DEP-14 _require_ > > that the salsa repo have HEAD set to the branch where new contributors, > > NMUers, and others not familiar with the project should be making > > changes. > > From https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/: > > > [Packaging branches and tags] NOTE: If the Git repository listed in > > debian/control's Vcs-Git field does not indicate an explicit branch > > (with the -b <branch> suffix) then it should have its HEAD point to > > the branch where new upstream versions are being packaged (that is > > one of the branches associated to a development release). 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. > and > > > [Native packages] However the default branch of the repository (as > > pointed by the HEAD reference) should be a development branch. > DEP-14 could have a stronger message, but the requirement for HEAD to point > to the development branch is there.
Oh. Maybe this is my problem then, but the fact that I missed this even when I was specifically trying to find it suggests that there might be a problem. Maybe it should use the phrase "default branch" in both places? And yes, Marvin is right to point out that I'm saying that the branch name should be something we take into account for new repositories rather than something we try to impose on existing ones. No matter how much you polish a script to do the renaming in bulk, the change is still going to be disruptive to anyone who has a local clone of any of the affected repositories at the moment. So maybe let's spend time on something else instead. -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwat...@debian.org]
