{debupstream} no longer looks at non-base branches for debian/changelog

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:32:34 -0000, Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> wrote:
> What should we do with the 0.4 format, should we require users to
> explicitly use {debupstream:branch} if they want the version to come
> from a non-base branch?

I'm not sure. I don't think that the existing behaviour is bad.

It does mean that the user can't take from the base branch though, as it
has no name that can be used.

I think for consistency we just have the behaviour currently in trunk
(take from the base branch.)

That seems less than ideal though, as generally there will be only one
tree that has the changelog, so the currentl behaviour is easiest for
people to use.

Thanks,

James

On 24/06/11 22:12, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:32:34 -0000, Jelmer Vernooij<email address hidden> wrote:
>> What should we do with the 0.4 format, should we require users to
>> explicitly use {debupstream:branch} if they want the version to come
>> from a non-base branch?
> I'm not sure. I don't think that the existing behaviour is bad.
>
> It does mean that the user can't take from the base branch though, as it
> has no name that can be used.
>
> I think for consistency we just have the behaviour currently in trunk
> (take from the base branch.)
>
> That seems less than ideal though, as generally there will be only one
> tree that has the changelog, so the currentl behaviour is easiest for
> people to use.
>
Perhaps we can keep the current behaviour, but IFF we don't find a
debian/changelog in the root branch, fall back to the old behaviour?

That seems less clean and predictable though.

Cheers,

jelmer

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:55:30 -0000, Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> wrote:
> Perhaps we can keep the current behaviour, but IFF we don't find a
> debian/changelog in the root branch, fall back to the old behaviour?
>
> That seems less clean and predictable though.

Yeah, I think it would do the right thing most of the time, but it would
be rather unexpected I think.

I think I'm leaning towards a special variable for the final tree, like
{debupstream:<tree>} or similar. I don't think it's really needed
if we're not going to have the simple {debupstream} look at the tree.

Thanks,

James