Manphiz <manphiz@gmail.com> writes: > Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> writes: > >> Hi manphiz, >> >> Manphiz <manphiz@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Xiyue Deng <manphiz@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> Hi sten, >>> >>> When trying to pick a new upstream to rebase, I found that pulling >>> either upstream repo will result in an incompatible git history versus >>> the current debian/master branch on salsa. >> >> This is expected, but please merge from upstream. >> >>> I wonder how I should handle this? >> >> The commit of the upstream source you import should be tagged. If >> upstream hasn't made a tagged release, then you'll need to: >> >> 1. With a the upstream of your choice set in the watch file, "gbp >> import-orig --uscan" will do the right thing in this repository. This >> is one reason why a functioning watch file that defines the correct >> upstream is useful. It should also save time to do this once, and >> then switch to a tag merging workflow for the next upstream import. >> >> OR >> >> I. Ask upstream to tag a stable release (probably NA to GNU ELPA's >> monorepo) >> II. Merge that tag to either the upstream branch, or directly to the >> Debian packaging branch. See the merge note at §i. >> III. Do fixup work to make "git diff tag -- !(debian)" clean. >> >> OR >> >> i. Merge new upstream commit to the upstream branch (which will also >> merge its history), because tags of detached HEADS behave unreliably >> through remotes; ie the tag needs to be of a commit on a branch. See >> git merge man page about what to about unrelated histories. >> ii. Create an annotated tag in the format you defined in debian/watch >> (note substitutions for special characters). I've always done this >> manually with a "Tag upstream snapshot for Debian use" annotation, but >> NOTE: There is probably a better way to create these tags by now. >> iii. Merge your annotated tag to the Debian packaging branch. >> iv. Do fixup work to make "git diff tag -- !(debian)" clean. >> >> In every case, you'll need to insure that the upstream tag is pushed to >> Salsa. >> >>> Is it OK to force push to master? >> >> No. >> >> Best, >> Nicholas >> > > Thanks Nicholas, David! I found that "git merge upstream/externals/muse > --allow-unrelated-histories" did what I wanted. However, as this merged > pulled in the whole history of upstream repo it now has 1000+ commits > since the current debian/master. To be cautious, I have created a merge > request[1] which also has the packaging updates to the latest head. > PTAL. > > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/emacsen-team/muse-el/-/merge_requests/4 Friendly ping for comments. Or should I prepare a package and upload to mentors directly for review? -- Manphiz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature