On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 03:58:12PM -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > > > I think this significantly underestimates the annoyance involved in > > > renaming > > > existing long-lived branches (in that all clients have to re-clone or > > > manually adjust), which is certainly why I generally avoid doing so > > > unless I > > > absolutely have to.
+1
> This seems overly complicated. The simplest way forward if to finalize
> DEP-14, and let maintainers and packagers adopt it whenever they feel
> the benefit. You probably also want to wait a bit for tooling
> maintainers to default to what DEP-14 suggests.
agreed.
> Regardless of what branch names packages use today or in the future,
> they should all have a debian/gbp.conf file that defines what branches
> and packaging practices are being used *right now*.
I dont want to use git-buildpackage and I don't want a gpb.conf. Please accept
this. Thanks.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
A ship is always safe at shore, but that is not what it's built for.
(Albert Einstein)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
