Hi,
if one manages two versions of a software :
2.0, the latest, which goes to experimental
and 1.0.x, still maintained by upstream, going to unstable.

What's the best way to name gbp branches ?
I thought of something like :
2.0 1.0.x
master master-1.0.x
upstream upstream-1.0.x
pristine-tar pristine-tar-1.0.x

is there some common practice ?

Regards,
Jérémy


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D54F755.6010401@melix.org">http://lists.debian.org/4D54F755.6010401@melix.org

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:46:13 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:

> Hi,
> if one manages two versions of a software :
> 2.0, the latest, which goes to experimental
> and 1.0.x, still maintained by upstream, going to unstable.
>
> What's the best way to name gbp branches ?
> I thought of something like :
> 2.0 1.0.x
> master master-1.0.x
> upstream upstream-1.0.x
> pristine-tar pristine-tar-1.0.x
>
> is there some common practice ?

I usually use something like:

master <> exp/master for, respectively, unstable and experimental and upstream
<> exp/upstream. You can achieve the latter by passing
--upstream-branch=exp/upstream to git-import-orig.

If you don't expect new upstream versions of 1.0.x for unstable (which AIUI is
not the case for your software), you could use "upstream" both for unstable
*and* experimental (i.e. just "git import-orig" in the correct order). You'll
just need to use some appropriate switches when building.

Now you can run git-buildpackage. Depending on the branch you're on (master or
exp/master), it will use that as "debian branch". Then you need to specify the
upstream branch:

$ git-buildpackage --upstream-branch=exp/upstream

This is for building the experimental version, in case the upstream branches
are split.

If you use a unified upstream branch, i.e. only the latest code is available
there (2.0), and you need to build the unstable version, you can even use tags:

$ git-buildpackage --upstream-branch=upstream/1.0.x

I don't know if there's any better layout though

Kindly,
David

--
. '`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

hi jérémy,

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> What's the best way to name gbp branches ?
> I thought of something like :
> 2.0 1.0.x
> master master-1.0.x
> upstream upstream-1.0.x
> pristine-tar pristine-tar-1.0.x
>
> is there some common practice ?

personally, i don't use "master" or references to specific upstream
versions at all in the branching, and use something like the following:

debian-experimental/upstream-experimental
debian-sid/upstream-sid
debian-squeeze/upstream-squeeze

(etc). the pkg-php php.git would be a good example of that.

i find this system is generally intuitive and trouble free, as long as you
don't end up needing to support multiple versions of the software in
the *same* release.

fyi about git-buildpackage: you can put the branch names and any other
release-specific stuff in ./debian/gbp.conf, on the respective debianized
branch, which means you can have different configurations on a per-branch
basis, and don't need to pass all those pesky options to gbp every time
you run it


sean


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110211093303.GA3729@cobija.connexer.com">http://lists.debian.org/20110211093303.GA3729@cobija.connexer.com

Jérémy Lal wrote:
> pristine-tar pristine-tar-1.0.x

You should never need more than one pristine-tar branch for a package.

(Unless you're importing pristine tarballs that have identical
filenames, but different content.)

--
see shy jo