Hi Bastian, On Thu, 2024-06-13 at 20:48 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > Hi folks > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 05:30:26PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > What did I miss? > > After the discussion in our meeting today, it seems I did not properly > describe the problem good enough.
And then we had another discussion in last week's meeting, and I think we finally reached some rough agreement on this. I'm going to try to set out how I understand this would work. > > Between different branches a lot of merges happen. Between master and > > sid in both directions, so changes can be done in both places and > > changelogs show a linear history. Between sid and *-backports. > > Okay, what we regularly do is merges between sid and master. Those > merges are done by hand, but could be automated to some degree. Doing > them requires the developer to take a lot of decisions in one single > step: I agree that we should stop doing this. We'll need to close bugs on both branches in some cases. [...] > What is not longer possible in non-confusing ways is to use branches > named after Debian distributions. We would either need to do non fast > forward or do --their merges. Both variants are highly confusing to > users and the later one even got the same problems that I just described > above. For testing/unstable and for stable-backports suites I agree we shouldn't do this any more. The -backports changes will need to rebased when switching from e.g. 6.10.x to 6.11.x. Having said that, a rebase isn't much more reviewable than a merge, so I would prefer not to rebase -backports for upstream stable updates. While merges for such updates are not automatic, the conflicts are in practice trivial. For stable and stable-security I think we could continue using codenames as we don't expect to move to a new upstream stable branch (at least, not often). [...] > > ## Proposal > > > > Stop merging back changes, but create version distinct branches. > > Something like that: > > master: uploaded to experimental Call this debian/latest so we follow DEP-14 as far as possible. > -> debian/release/6.6: uploaded to unstable and stable releases > -> debian/backport/6.6.1-1: uploaded to backports (not really > needed in most cases) As I pointed out in the meeting, backports do sometimes need extra patches or kconfig changes so we can't treat them as automatic, even with the proposed changes to add suite-dependent config. And as stated above, I don't want to rebase -backports for every stable update. > -> debian/security/6.6.1+1: extra security releases I would prefer to use suite names in these branch names, to make itclearer what the branches correspond to. So those would be: - debian/6.6/unstable - debian/6.6/bookworm-backports - debian/6.6.1+1/booxie-security [*] (swapping the release and suite so that they don't actually conflict with DEP-14 branch names). Ben. * booxie is the little-known Debian release between bookworm and trixie that included Linux 6.6. :-) -- Ben Hutchings - Debian developer, member of kernel, installer and LTS teams
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
