On Sun, 2025-01-05 at 22:31 +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote: > Does this mean that maintaining upstream Git history will be standard in > the Go team? > > Personally, I prefer the simpler method of not pulling from upstream and > just importing from a tarball, as it results in better (IMO) commit > history[1] and it is much easier to revert or checkout previous upstream > versions (i.e. simpler navigation of packaging commit history). In > addition, pulling from upstream introduces tagging problems and results > in either: > 1. Two identical tags from upstream (e.g. "v2.2.4") and gbp (e.g. > "upstream/2.2.4") being created. > 2. The "upstream/2.2.4" tag format not being used at all. > (I have seen both of these occur when upstream history is incorporated.)
I forgot to mention that gbp-dch also doesn't work properly with upstream Git history, generating massive changelog entries that include upstream's commits as well. It's very annoying when gbp-dch is supposed to make updating the changelog more convenient. -- Maytham Alsudany Debian Maintainer maytham @ OFTC maytha8 @ Libera
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
