Julian Gilbey <jul...@d-and-j.net> writes: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 08:27:33PM +0300, Alexandru Mihail wrote: >> Hi, I've recently created >> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/psrecord following >> previous ITP. The main branch was set to main and I'd like to move it >> to DEP compliant debian/master and delete the main branch. > > The candidate DEP-14 (https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/) > currently reads: > > In Debian this means that uploads to unstable and experimental > should be prepared either in the debian/latest branch or > respectively in the debian/unstable and debian/experimental > branches. > > I'm not sure where you got debian/master from?
FYI debian/master was DEP14:
Changes
2014-11-05: Initial draft by Raphaël Hertzog.
2016-11-09: Extended version mangling to troublesome dots -- Ian Jackson.
2020-11-29:
* Replace <vendor>/master with <vendor>/latest
* Recommend <vendor>/<suite> over <vendor>/<codename> for the devel branch
* For native packages, require the default branch to be a devel branch
* Minor typo fixes and cosmetic changes
* Promote DEP to State: CANDIDATE
Last edited Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:33:22 +0000
https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/
It's certain that there are many packages that follow DEP14 DRAFT rather
than CANDIDATE. An alternative interpretation is that DEP14 strong
recommends (ie "should use", "should be", "we recommend")
<vendor>/latest rather than <vendor>/master. Thus, <vendor>/master is
arguably still more DEP14 than not. We've also seen the proliferation
of <vendor>/main development branches that fulfil all of the technical
objectives of DEP14, and I would consider them to also be DEP14.
As an aside, I'm curious what the undocumented 2024 edit was.
Best,
Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
