Re: backport python-astropy for jessie?
Hi Leo and Andreas,
On 03.02.2017 09:12, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 01:18:40AM -0500, Leo P. Singer wrote:
>>
>> Git will not let me name the branch 'debian/jessie-backports' because there is already a branch called 'debian':
>>
>> $ git branch -m debian/jessie-backports
>> error: 'refs/heads/debian' exists; cannot create 'refs/heads/debian/jessie-backports'
>> fatal: Branch rename failed
>>
>> Apparently, it is a known issue with git that you cannot create a branch 'foo/bar' if branch 'foo' exists:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22630404/git-push-refs-heads-my-subbranch-exists-cannot-create
>>
>> Since it looks like most debian-astro packages have a 'debian' branch rather than 'master', is it OK if for debian-astro we instead adopt the practice that backports go in the 'jessie-backports' branch?
>
> If the Debian Astro team is doing things consistently that's pretty fine
> for me. For outsider / newcomers its helpful if its written down
> somewhere when deriving from what other teams consider standard,
> thought.
We are not consistent here, and this is probably my fault: I slightly
prefer(ed) "debian" in my packages, and so many of the debian-astro
packages have that. On the other hand I know that many people use
"master", and when sponsoring new packages, I let people choose freely.
But when we run into trouble here we should probably stick/move to one
standard; so I would propose to just rename the "debian" branch in
astropy to "master". I could do that during the day. Disadvantage is
that other users will need to resync their repository, but since I am
the only uploader/contributor yet, this should be not a big problem (if
it is not one for you, Leo).
If there is someone lurking and depending on the current structure, and
reading this mailing list, pleas complain ASAP :-)
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: