• Re: Towards DEP-14 acceptance and recently proposed changes

    From gregor herrmann@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 18 16:10:01 2025
    On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:17:20 +0100, Guido Gⁿnther wrote:

    On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 06:10:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
    Hello Gregor,

    Bonjour !

    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 "upstreamvcs", it seems fair >> > > to me to standardize on this name.
    In theory, yes. In pratice, quoting myself:
    | As a data point, the Debian Perl Group is using "upstream-repo" for
    | this additional remote in its tools since December 2013.
    Not that one is better than the other, and although I like to follow
    git-buildpackage in general, having to change the names on 4000+
    remotes on dozens of developers' machine is annoying.
    I can certainly sympathize with that. I don't have any strong personal
    preference in the name but since the goal is to standardize across tools,
    we need to pick one.

    Ack.

    Can you point out which tools in the Perl group use that remote name?
    How easy is it to tweak those tools to perform the rename of the remote
    in some dynamic fashion?

    I (finally) hada quick look, and it should be fairly easy to add the
    rename to dpt-upstream-repo, which is also called by our .mrconfig
    setup. Looks like a quick DebCamp project.

    On the other side, we could check whether Guido would be willing to update >> git-buildpackage to use "upstream-repo" as default? I don't know since
    when "uptsreamvcs" is a thing and whether changing the default again would >> have serious drawbacks.
    The work within gbp is almost zero. I'm aware of some scripts that rely
    on the naming though and we don't know what else exists outside of gbp
    (and there's also users outside Debian) so if we don't *have* to change
    the name that would be better.

    Agreed.


    Cheers,
    gregor

    --
    .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
    : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
    `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
    `-

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEE0eExbpOnYKgQTYX6uzpoAYZJqgYFAmgp6Z5fFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEQx RTEzMTZFOTNBNzYwQTgxMDREODVGQUJCM0E2ODAxODY0OUFBMDYACgkQuzpoAYZJ qgbslg//SLan0HTzNBiAv2pqwycE61HuSZZgqvCAAi+LsEev5SCUO3+LVW5ZCKU3 8p4z7PZvUl3oaIZeA7Nnv6TjWQ5kTBncY4YgYJhXJLCgcJRzrlDGaKtSQBtQRg2h FZniOzCxWGqXLXIVvNQVoOVrpSl2QB4gTFKvEIRAW6OoWQGJDZQjgJ/fg7wQOsg8 ykypVgrsS6xdWBX9YkaGi0ecx4i2Ph0tzNJPDF0SB3L3m3w6cULkkSx5Gg2Etqix oBWxNik+qvdobV3EuI4p0jb6QKIJKy5HZk2mVz/BFP3YqE2GKAGDU1mhXTtncl24 ErU1GfRtAVNv+OUb8nHFzTdXmocQQiqXnoIAKIrgB2/CQEFM1gKczyzm41i1t6ht eUp40rmGVR6Cw0uZOvuapGPD6MQ5GVKFyMSAjgM15jhD7Llw6y/Lin1Ey3hoMOl6 2YQwarPvs/sr7/1+wgxL7g1+cINKZKRSwVUexiIuHtkqxh64agKKxx7YsNpTgjNL
    Qml0
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_Plissonneau_Duqu=C@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 18 21:30:01 2025
    Le 2025-05-18 16:07, gregor herrmann a écrit :

    I (finally) hada quick look, and it should be fairly easy to add the
    rename to dpt-upstream-repo, which is also called by our .mrconfig
    setup. Looks like a quick DebCamp project.

    I wonder though, is there a significant benefit in recommending a
    specific remote name for upstream repositories in DEP-14? Tools could
    still scan the configured remotes to find one that matches the URI
    declared in `debian/upstream/metadata`, so (if not dropping the
    recommendation) maybe just recommending that the remote name begins with "upstream" while avoiding the exact name "upstream" could be enough?

    Cheers,

    --
    Julien Plissonneau Duquène

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)