[ Adding Guido in copy, replying to an old mail ] Hello Gregor,
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 12:00:27 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > Given that the "upstream" branch name cames from the git-buildpackage and > > that it's git-buildpackage which introduced "upstreamvcs", it seems fair > > to me to standardize on this name. > > In theory, yes. In pratice, quoting myself: > > | As a data point, the Debian Perl Group is using "upstream-repo" for > | this additional remote in its tools since December 2013. > > Not that one is better than the other, and although I like to follow > git-buildpackage in general, having to change the names on 4000+ > remotes on dozens of developers' machine is annoying. I can certainly sympathize with that. I don't have any strong personal preference in the name but since the goal is to standardize across tools, we need to pick one. Can you point out which tools in the Perl group use that remote name? How easy is it to tweak those tools to perform the rename of the remote in some dynamic fashion? I mean "git remote rename upstream-repo upstreamvcs" could be called automatically by a newer version of your tools. Or a more complex set of commands that would duplicate the remote instead of renaming it. On the other side, we could check whether Guido would be willing to update git-buildpackage to use "upstream-repo" as default? I don't know since when "uptsreamvcs" is a thing and whether changing the default again would have serious drawbacks. But if I have to pick one or the other name, I'm more inclined to follow the lead of git-buildpackage since it's more widely used than the above helper tools of the Perl team. Have a nice day! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
