Hi,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 06:10:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> [ Adding Guido in copy, replying to an old mail ]
>
> Hello Gregor,
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2025, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 12:00:27 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > > Given that the "upstream" branch nam
Hi,
sorry for replying to an old thread.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Maybe before moving it to ACCEPTED, it would be useful to design a
> dashboard of some kind to track adoption, not just in tooling, but in
> actual packages?
I agree with that. Furthermore with multiple recent
[ Adding Guido in copy, replying to an old mail ]
Hello Gregor,
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 12:00:27 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > Given that the "upstream" branch name cames from the git-buildpackage and
> > that it's git-buildpackage which introduced
Good morning,
Le 2025-01-07 09:41, Julien Plissonneau Duquène a écrit :
The MR above has additional links and descriptions of current
practices. I do not have a strong preference for a choice yet so
feedback would be appreciated.
I've updated the merge request at [1] to replace the initial
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 12:00:27 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Given that the "upstream" branch name cames from the git-buildpackage and
> that it's git-buildpackage which introduced "upstreamvcs", it seems fair
> to me to standardize on this name.
In theory, yes. In pratice, quoting myself:
| As
Hi,
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Like many others, this looks like a gratuitous change for change's sake.
> Countless packages have been using "upstream" for years, but apparently
> it is not perfect enough and somebody had to invent a new name.
It's difficult to have figures for t
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:29:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 07, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs" as the
> > name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also
> Like many others, this looks like a gratuitous cha
On 08/01/25 06:31, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs" as the
name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also
documents the possibility to merge the upstream commits in the
"upstream/latest" branch (as proposed by gbp im
Hi,
> > > This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs" as the
> > > name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also
> > > documents the possibility to merge the upstream commits in the
> > > "upstream/latest" branch (as proposed by gbp import-orig
> > >
Julien Plissonneau Duquène writes:
>
> [..snip..]
>
> Could you please give us a few examples of projects where that already
> works out-of-the-box, ie the package is built and uploaded to the
> archive exactly as provided by upstream, debian/changelog and all?
>
I'm not Marco, but I happen to
On Jan 07, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
> You are free to join or discuss it here. That DEP has been online for some
> years now, it's not exactly happening in the hiding.
Nobody mentioned hiding anything, but it's still just a few people
chatting in a gitlab issue.
> > WTF? I say instead
Le 2025-01-07 12:59, Andrey Rakhmatullin a écrit :
Tags in git are not prefixed with the remote name or anything else. A
tag
named upstream/1.2.3 is never from the upstream. A tag named 1.2.3
should
always be from the upstream.
Branches, on the other hand, indeed clash between "upstream/foo br
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 12:46:46PM +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
> > > This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs"
> > > as the
> > > name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also
> > Like many others, this looks like a gratuitous change fo
Le 2025-01-07 11:29, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Jan 07, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs" as
the
name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also
Like many others, this looks like a gratuitous change for change's
sa
On 07/01/25 at 11:53 +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog [250107 08:39]:
> > 1/ https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/9
> > (see mr9.patch attached if you don't want to look up on the web)
> >
> > We had a couple of revisions already and it seems fine to me to m
* Raphael Hertzog [250107 08:39]:
> 1/ https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/9
> (see mr9.patch attached if you don't want to look up on the web)
>
> We had a couple of revisions already and it seems fine to me to merge
> this, if anyone has valid objections (i.e. with good rati
On Jan 07, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> This change basically adds the recommendation to use "upstreamvcs" as the
> name of the "git remote" to access the upstream repository and it also
Like many others, this looks like a gratuitous change for change's sake.
Countless packages have been using "upstr
Le 2025-01-07 08:38, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
2/ https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/16
To expand a bit on this, proposals so far for naming versioned branches
are:
1. // e.g. debian/6.12/trixie which (I think)
matches what the kernel team is already doing [1]
2. // e.g
Hello,
DEP-14 is 10 years old and while it's far from being ubiquitous, it
seems to have gained enough traction (in particular in git-buildpackage
thanks to the work of Otto Kekäläinen, and in quite some packaging teams
thanks to the respective team members) that it would be worth marking
it as AC
19 matches
Mail list logo
