<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Ralf Treinen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:treinen@free.fr" target="_blank">treinen@free.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Kristof,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:35:31PM +0200, Kristof Ralovich wrote:<br>
<br>
> I started working on the upstream branch, as g-a-d doesn't have a real upstream<br>
> project any more. This is what I was trying to ask in my original email. What<br>
> is the preferred way of development (providing patches)? I assumed the implicit<br>
> answer of working on the upstream branch.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes I understand now that you are taking over upstream. According to what you<br>
wrote in your previous mails the new upstream is<br>
<a href="https://github.com/ralovich/garmin-ant-downloader/tree/antpm-integration1" target="_blank">https://github.com/ralovich/garmin-ant-downloader/tree/antpm-integration1</a>.<br>
Isn't that the case any more?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> My software is already released independently from debian, see https://<br>
> <a href="http://code.google.com/p/antpm" target="_blank">code.google.com/p/antpm</a> . The second reason I started working on the upstream<br>
> branch was that I would like to merge antpm in there, that is fuse antpm into<br>
> g-a-d.<br>
<br>
</div>Very well, but I thought that this fusion is happening upstream (that is<br>
in your github repository mentioned above). That would be the normal<br>
workflow. Once you have done that you would publish an upstream<br>
g-a-d tarball, version 1.0 or whatever.<br>
<br>
Then you go over to debian and do an git-import-orig of that package<br>
to integrate your new upstream release into the "upstream" branch<br>
of the git repo on alioth.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> The third reason I started working on the upstream branch was to e.g. close<br>
> bug <a href="http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690068" target="_blank">http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690068</a>, for that I<br>
> basically needed to figure out a way to commit fixes in the upstream branch, so<br>
> i could still test-build a working .deb package from master afterwards.<br>
<br>
</div>Two ways to do that:<br>
- integrate the documentation in your new upstream release, in that<br>
case the bug gets closed once you update the debian package to your new<br>
upstream release. And everybody else who uses your upstream repo<br>
(people who download your source code directly, other distros ...)<br>
do also profit from your improvements.<br>
- Do a fix that exists only in the debian package, in that case the<br>
necessary changes would go into the master branch on alioth (or into<br>
some other branch that we could later merge into master).<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> If you would like me to, I can host the new "upstream repository" on github or<br>
> somewhere else (and it will be based on the current upstream branch in debian,<br>
> as that is the latest code). Please let me know if i should do that!<br>
<br>
</div>yes, that would be the usual workflow. The "upstream" branch is usually<br>
used just to integrate an upstream development that has been published<br>
elsewhere. The debian developer then does his thing in the "master"<br>
branch. The "upstream" branch is not meant to do upstream development.<br>
<br>
Cheers -Ralf.<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Ralf,</div><div><br></div><div>You're right, it is probably better to follow the usual workflow, that is to maintain the upstream repository independent from the debian repository.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In this spirit, I've decided to keep the upstream project and repository under the name antpm, and merge g-a-d into there, instead of the other way around I suggested in my first email. Thus, the merge happened in the "gant-integration" branch of <a href="https://github.com/ralovich/antpm/tree/gant-integration">https://github.com/ralovich/antpm/tree/gant-integration</a>. After that I've added the man page for g-a-d, merged the build system into antpm's cmake framework, and fixed a few build time warnings (you can see these in detail in the commits). Through this harmonization, g-a-d now builds as part of antpm, and we have retained the intact development history of both projects. I would like to call this, the base-line, effectively a loose coupling, as the functionality of neither g-a-d nor antpm was effected, but their sources are integrated already.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As a side note, afterwards I've released a new version of antpm, to mark the same first round of integration, but this is independent of the debian packaging.</div><div><br></div><div>If you agree with me, then I would push the above mentioned "gant-integration" branch (through antpm's master) into the "upstream" branch of <span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">git+ssh://</span><a href="http://git.debian.org/git/pkg-running/garmin-ant-downloader.git" target="_blank" style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">git.debian.org/git/pkg-running/garmin-ant-downloader.git</a>. As previously underlined, this would keep the existing histories intact!</div>
<div><br></div><div>Afterwards, I would like to tag "upstream/20131011", create/update pristine-tar accordingly, merge the new tag into master, and later prepare in master to release a "0:20131011-1" version of the debian package.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What do you think?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Kristof</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div></div>