-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use DEP-14 branch names debian/latest and upstream/latest, and upstream vcs remote name 'upstreamvcs' #247
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
In DEP-14, the preferred branch name for the Debian packaging target branch is `debian/latest` and the preferred name for the upstream import target branch is `upstream/latest`. Note that the upstream development branch name can be whatever and should stay as it is upstream, typically `main` or `master`. The branch `upstream/latest` should not point to the latest upstream development commit, but to the latest commit that was used as the upstream release that the Debian revision was derived from.
Instead of using various different upstream remote names, use the one and same upstream git remote name consistently. As the name pick `upstreamvcs` just as git-buildpackage does, so that if anybody runs `gbp clone` they will automatically end up with the same git remotes and branches as anyone in to go-team.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Most of the changes in this PR are not very controversial and I support them, even if I personally prefer upstream/<upstream HEAD>
instead of upstream/latest
(which is valid DEP-14 as we are not importing tarballs but following git history.
But big NACK to the change of the debian branch, you still haven't given a reason to change, except a misinterpretation of DEP-14. This PR cannot be merged until there is a consensus on this topic.
how's |
What is a misinterpretation is stating the |
I did not invent |
@ottok Here lies the problem:
|
See commits for details. This is a re-submission of #225, pending to be merged potentially in the summer of 2025.