Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2009, 20:39 +0530 schrieb Onkar Shinde: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Perez<adrianperez....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The upstream branch. Yes it is. What's wrong with it. I need it for > > pristine-tar and upstream branches. > > I am not sure if there is anything wrong with it. I am just not used to git.
A lot of people include upstream sources when doing packaging work with Git. It has several advantages, two of them I'd like to highlight here: 1. It is quite easy to branch from the upstream branch and doing modifications to upstream there. Tools exists to (almost) automatically turn the changes from this branch into a quilt-like patch file (see TopGit). (This is especially interesting when we go for the 3.0 source format(s).) 2. When using pristine-tar, the upstream branch allows it to recreate the .orig.tar.gz. There is no need to carry piles of tarballs around. This method also saves spaces at some point because the upstream files plus pristine-tar's delta files usually get smaller then the size of all tarballs very quickly, if you keep serveral. Also, one can work on packages while being offline, as there is a way to recreate a tarball one forgot to download. If it's worth to keep upstreams sources in version control, one needs to decide. From my experience it is very handy to have the sources available at all times. There is no problem with putting just debian/ under Git, as it is common when using Subversion. git-buildpackage handles that equally well. Best regards Manuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
