Comment 3 for bug 376939

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 10:31 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> Secondly, I notice you don't mention package branches in this (e.g.
> lp:~ted/ubuntu/karmic/gimp/2.26). I realize that they aren't quite the
> same thing as what you're asking for, but I'd be interested to know how
> you think they should fit in.

That's mostly because I didn't know that package branches existed when I
wrote this bug :)

I guess I think that the second branch would probably be a packaging
branch in most cases. But, the thing I'd want to ensure is that they're
not DISTRO packaging branches but any packaging branch. For instance,
here's kind how we do things for the indicator-applet project which is
an upstream project done by Canonical where (surprisingly) most of the
developers are on Ubuntu.

We maintain a trunk branch that has the code in it. We then merge that
into a packaging branch that we use to publish to a shared PPA. When we
do a release, we make that on the trunk branch and make a tarball. We
then merge to our packaging branch and make packages for our PPA. Then
the distro team takes our packaging branch and makes it good enough to
go into the distro.

So for us, on a development series, there are the two branches. The
trunk development branch and a packaging branch that is used for our
PPA. But, if we were to target more than one distro, we'd probably need
more than one packaging branch.