[Pkg-clamav-devel] VCS discussion

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday 26 August 2008 06:06, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Scott Kitterman said:
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:21:55 +0100 Stephen Gran <sgran at debian.org> wrote:
> > > etc.  Does that seem reasonable?  Am I forgetting something that
> > > should probably go in?  I suspect that with the above layout,
> > > 'master' will basically just track the upstream release, and we'll
> > > do development of the debian/ directory in the debian/unstable
> > > branch for Debian and ubuntu/trunk for Ubuntu.  This has the
> > > advantage that when Debian makes a set of changes in unstable (pulls
> > > new upstream release, fixes a few bugs in maintainer scripts, etc)
> > > Ubuntu can just merge, and vice versa.
> >
> > Currently we generally sync clamav from Unstable and use it unchanged,
> > so as long as I can go back and branch from a particular Debian
> > upload, I expect we'll mostly be working from the same packaging
> > branch (work jointly on debian/unstable and then branch off when
> > Ubuntu releases would be the general idea).
>
> OK, so would a shared master branch be useful?  I thought there were
> some Ubuntu specific things that would need to be tracked differently
> (app armor?  Different library package names?) but I could be wrong - I
> have to admit I don't know a lot about the Ubuntu development cycle.

There is a apparmor profile that's being developed.  I'm not sure if it will 
make it in the package or not.  There are also times when there are library 
naming differences, but those we can generally handle with alternative 
dependencies.  

I'm not sure how to deal with this best, but the situation I envision is that 
whatever tracks the development release of Ubuntu will more likely than not 
be the same as whatever tracks Unstable.  I looked and it's been about 10 
months since that wasn't the case except for some very brief intervals.  
There will be moments, when due to freeze timings or perhaps some other 
Ubuntu unique requirement, it needs to be different.

I know very little about Git yet, and so I don't know what the best way to 
deal with this is.  I had thought a shared master than Ubuntu could branch 
off of when needed in development or at each release would work, but that's 
without knowing a significant amount about Git.

> I'm thinking that I'd like to start populating the repo fairly soon -
> I've heard no objections to using git.  If we can hammer out a layout
> we want, I can start setting it up.

I've no objections to Git.  It'll be an interesting learning experience.

Scott K