openstack team mailing list archive

[Monty Taylor <mordred@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/25/2011 02:30 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 01:59 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> This is one of the things we should discuss. I was talking about adding
>> the packaging branches to the main repo - so master would be the actual
>> VC used by the project devs. It would look like:
>>   master - main development target
>>   pristine-tarball - pristine-tarball diff information
>>   upstream-* - packaging 'upstream branch'
>>   debian-* - debian packaging branches
> 
> By all means, *please* avoid "master" as a branch name. Call it
> bleeding-edge/unstable/testing/devel if you want, but simply not
> "master". :)

Well - sorry - I think we're speaking different words here.

When I say "main development target" - I mean the master branch of what
is github.com/openstack/project. I am _not_ convinced that this is the
right way to go, and having packaging be a completely separate repo
might be the right choice. BUT - if we do integrate the two into one
repo, then the branch that the devs work against will be called master.
Full stop.

> What would be the use of "pristine-tarball" ? Prepare .tar.gz for
> generic distributions, like RPMs or let's say Gentoo?

Nope. It helps in generation of tarballs for the debian packaging too.
Check out the --git-pristine-tar option to git-buildpackage. It's pretty
cool... I think you'll like it.

>>> Unless I didn't understand what you mean by "one-off" (please elaborate
>>> so that we avoid confusions), if backports are to be uploaded to
>>> backports.debian.org, then we'd better take care that they are
>>> maintained correctly. So having a branch for it sounds like a
>>> requirement to me. I wouldn't take the responsibility to upload to
>>> backports.d.o if we don't take it seriously. I'm already feeling quite
>>> bad that I've left the current packages in the air without fixes, with
>>> the build process totally broken... :(
>>
>> Sorry - I should indicate here. (forgive me if I sound snarky) - I don't
>> really personally care about backports.d.o - it's the backported library
>> packages that go into the openstack repo I care about.
>>
>> BUT - I may have been unclear here - I think there should definitely be
>> a repo and it should match the standards above, I just don't think it
>> needs to have a branch that's related to upstream VC.
>>
>> Monty
> 
> In that case, we could maintain the upstream-*-backports and
> debian-*-backports branch in Alioth. I believe maintaining a Git for
> what we release in *.debian.org is always good (eg: backports.d.o or
> just normal main). That's what is cool with the distributed part of Git:
> it is easy to do that, and merge from one repo to another.

That actually might make sense. Let's discuss that idea further.

Monty