On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 8:23 PM Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 01:05:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > But given that we recommend upstream/latest for the upstream branch, I'm > now > > leaning towards using debian/latest as default as well. > > FWIW, I like this better than any of the other suite-neutral names that > I'd previously suggested. It has the advantage of making it obvious that > this name is only suitable for packages whose workflow is that they > will keep adding the latest versions to that branch, even if they are > only going to be uploaded to experimental (like gnome-shell, but unlike > dbus, which would instead rename its default debian/master branch to > debian/unstable or debian/sid, leaving debian/experimental for the latest > versions). > IMO it's a good recommendation to use debian/latest as default, because we put it the current (last) work on the package. But I am a little confusing about the transition into a latest version (thinking it as "in develop") to a debian/sid or debian/unstable branch where the package is not in develop, I mean is not in develop for the reason that the package pass from a develop/test/pre-work state to sid distribution where the package could not be changed without an uploaded process. DEP-14 will recommend the use of debian/latest for a package uploaded to sid/unstable? or debian/latest is a pre work before uploaded to sid/unstable? So, I think would be a good recommendation to use debian/latest as a default branch for "develop" reasons, then when the package is ready to upload move that change to other branch debian/experimental, debian/sid, etc.. Cheers, Emmanuel > > smcv > >
