> >Regarding "I don't want a gbp.conf", I think that we should aim for DRY, > >and that adding a gbp.conf in every package doesn't sound too great for > >teams that maintain hundreds or thousands of packages... > > Yes, please.
That could have been an option 10 years ago when people were creating the tools if the branch scheme and naming would have been standardized at the same time. It didn't happen, and Debian has a culture now that anyone can maintain their packages using whatever conventions they already have. Thus having a human and machine redable file that is explicit about what conventions are is at the moment the best thing to do.
