Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
We had a big push on hottest100 last week, and it was good. A fairly recent copy of the hottest100 results are below. To summarize where we got to: most of the upstream branches are now working; there are a few not correctly registered but that could probably be fairly easily fixed. In package branches a bit over half of the ones we sampled are working, and there are specific bugs for the failures. Jelmer set up to run the check-hottest.py script across everything in Ubuntu main; it shows things much less complete there, mostly in terms of making upstream links. We could go through and get them all to pass but that seems like it would be kind of missing the point: we want to get people motivated to be using this and for the tool to make that easy. The point of doing hottest100 is to shake out any problems and get some measurement of what's going wrong. I see people are now registering imports and apparently using them. So where do we go from here? Specific actions from here at least for the Canonical Bazaar people are: * help james_w with some of the bugs opened against the package importer (assuming he wants it) * talk to the Launchpad developers (through bugs or otherwise) about making the story of adding a new import, package-product link, etc easier * keep running this script at intervals so that we can track what kind of snags things seem to hit * work on udd-related bugs like the issues raised here before, and the more general stuff about getting multiple branches or UDD-like merge scenarios -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ status Description: Binary data -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:40:12 +, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: * help james_w with some of the bugs opened against the package importer (assuming he wants it) I would love it. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
We're hacking a bit more on this script (in http://code.launchpad.net/~canonical-bazaar/udd/hottest100) to make it do things including * check both the package and upstream branch for freshness and existence * cross check the package branch against Madison * understand some of the branches that are special cases of various kinds (metapackages, obsolete packages etc) * more... and in passing we're fixing some misregistration. At the moment the biggest problem we can't fix is that some Launchpad projects have branches but no development focus (ie default branch) and we don't have permission to change it. But we are collating that data and presumably can ask a registry admin to change them. -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On January 26, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: We're hacking a bit more on this script (in http://code.launchpad.net/~canonical-bazaar/udd/hottest100) to make it do things including * check both the package and upstream branch for freshness and existence * cross check the package branch against Madison * understand some of the branches that are special cases of various kinds (metapackages, obsolete packages etc) * more... That's awesome! and in passing we're fixing some misregistration. At the moment the biggest problem we can't fix is that some Launchpad projects have branches but no development focus (ie default branch) and we don't have permission to change it. But we are collating that data and presumably can ask a registry admin to change them. I've asked Tom to approve canonical-bazaar membership to the Registry Administrators. That should allow you to fix a few of them yourselves. Let us know if there are still some that you can't fix. Cheers -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 05:38 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote: On January 26, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: and in passing we're fixing some misregistration. At the moment the biggest problem we can't fix is that some Launchpad projects have branches but no development focus (ie default branch) and we don't have permission to change it. But we are collating that data and presumably can ask a registry admin to change them. I've asked Tom to approve canonical-bazaar membership to the Registry Administrators. That should allow you to fix a few of them yourselves. Let us know if there are still some that you can't fix. I've fixed those I can up myself, since I'm already a member of the Registry Administrators somehow. There's quite a few that seem to be owned by community members or teams but haven't actually been touched in a while. The following projects we can not update because of permissions: lp:amarok - lp:~vcs-imports/amarok/master lp:empathy - lp:~vcs-imports/empathy/master lp:brasero - lp:~vcs-imports/brasero/master lp:ekiga - lp:~vcs-imports/ekiga/git-trunk lp:evince - lp:~vcs-imports/evince/master Cheers, Jelmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
2010/1/26 Jelmer Vernooij jel...@canonical.com: I've fixed those I can up myself, since I'm already a member of the Registry Administrators somehow. There's quite a few that seem to be owned by community members or teams but haven't actually been touched in a while. The following projects we can not update because of permissions: lp:amarok - lp:~vcs-imports/amarok/master lp:empathy - lp:~vcs-imports/empathy/master lp:brasero - lp:~vcs-imports/brasero/master lp:ekiga - lp:~vcs-imports/ekiga/git-trunk lp:evince - lp:~vcs-imports/evince/master Cheers, Jelmer Well a few gnome projects might not be in hottest100 but I think it's still important for development focus to be right. Going through gnome meta-project on launchpad, please update: lp:accerciser - lp:~vcs-imports/accerciser/main lp:at-spi - lp:~vcs-imports/at-spi/git-trunk lp:ekiga - lp:~vcs-imports/ekiga/git-trunk lp:gconf - lp:~vcs-imports/gconf/trunk lp:glib - lp:~jjardon/glib/trunk lp:gnome-common - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-common/trunk lp:gnome-cups-manager - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-cups-manager/trunk There are more =) -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
2010/1/26 Martin Pool m...@canonical.com: lp:accerciser - lp:~vcs-imports/accerciser/main lp:at-spi - lp:~vcs-imports/at-spi/git-trunk lp:ekiga - lp:~vcs-imports/ekiga/git-trunk lp:gconf - lp:~vcs-imports/gconf/trunk lp:glib - lp:~jjardon/glib/trunk all done lp:gnome-common - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-common/trunk Fixed, but still reported stale because it rarely changes. So we might add a tag saying that some things just are expected to move slowly. lp:gnome-cups-manager - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-cups-manager/trunk One interesting thing that check-hottest.py found is that gnome-cups-manager is not a live package in Ubuntu after Hardy, but I've updated the branch anyhow. -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 11:46 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 05:38 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote: On January 26, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: and in passing we're fixing some misregistration. At the moment the biggest problem we can't fix is that some Launchpad projects have branches but no development focus (ie default branch) and we don't have permission to change it. But we are collating that data and presumably can ask a registry admin to change them. I've asked Tom to approve canonical-bazaar membership to the Registry Administrators. That should allow you to fix a few of them yourselves. Let us know if there are still some that you can't fix. I've fixed those I can up myself, since I'm already a member of the Registry Administrators somehow. There's quite a few that seem to be owned by community members or teams but haven't actually been touched in a while. The following projects we can not update because of permissions: lp:amarok - lp:~vcs-imports/amarok/master lp:empathy - lp:~vcs-imports/empathy/master lp:brasero - lp:~vcs-imports/brasero/master lp:ekiga - lp:~vcs-imports/ekiga/git-trunk lp:evince - lp:~vcs-imports/evince/master I've now changed these as well as the following other changes: registered lp:~vcs-imports/amarok/master registered lp:~vcs-imports/brasero/master registered lp:~vcs-imports/evince/master registered lp:~vcs-imports/evolution-exchange/master lp:evolution-exchange - lp:~vcs-imports/evolution-exchange/master lp:dpkg - lp:~vcs-imports/dpkg/master lp:f-spot - lp:~vcs-imports/f-spot/master registered lp:~vcs-imports/f-spot/master lp:file-roller - lp:~vcs-imports/file-roller/trunk registered lp:~vcs-imports/gdm/master lp:gdm - lp:~vcs-imports/gdm/master lp:gnome-applets - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-applets/trunk registered lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-control-center/trunk lp:gnome-control-center - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-control-center/trunk lp:gnome-games - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-games/trunk lp:gnome-media - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-media/trunk lp:gnome-panel - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-panel/master lp:gnome-screensaver - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-screensaver/git-trunk lp:gnome-system-monitor - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-system-monitor/trunk lp:gnome-terminal - lp:~vcs-imports/gnome-terminal/trunk lp:python-gst - lp:~andrewsomething/python-gst/trunk lp:gstreamer - lp:~kiko/gstreamer/trunk lp:gvfs - lp:~vcs-imports/gvfs/trunk registered lp:~vcs-imports/hal/master lp:hal - lp:~vcs-imports/hal/master registered lp:~vcs-imports/nautilus/master lp:nautilus - lp:~vcs-imports/nautilus/master lp:network-manager - lp:~vcs-imports/network-manager/trunk lp:network-manager-applet - lp:~vcs-imports/network-manager-applet/git-master registered lp:~vcs-imports/grub/grub2-bzr lp:grub/grub2 - lp:~vcs-imports/grub/grub2-bzr registered lp:~vcs-imports/totem/master lp:totem - lp:~vcs-imports/totem/master converted lp:~vcs-imports/vim/vim7 to bzr-svn lp:vim - lp:~vcs-imports/vim/vim7 registered lp:~vcs-imports/tracker/master lp:tracker - lp:~vcs-imports/tracker/master registered lp:~vcs-imports/system-config-printer/master lp:system-config-printer - lp:~vcs-imports/system-config-printer/master registered lp:~vcs-imports/evolution/master lp:evolution - lp:~vcs-imports/evolution/master lp:evince - lp:~vcs-imports/evince/master lp:empathy - lp:~vcs-imports/empathy/master lp:amarok - lp:~vcs-imports/amarok/master lp:ekiga - lp:~vcs-imports/ekiga/git-trunk Cheers, Jelmer -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Pool wrote: 2010/1/15 Andrew Bennetts andrew.benne...@canonical.com: Martin Pool wrote: [...] The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a script to scan them and report those which are stale. This will also I suspect that most of the gnome ones are currently stale (hopefully my mail from yesterday is a good step towards correcting that...), so I think definitely worth checking for staleness in our monitoring of hottest100 progress. My script in https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~canonical-bazaar/udd/hottest100/ claims 75 ok 25 unregistered -- meaning Launchpad said there was no default branch for that package 0 otherwise broken This may say more about its stupidity than the actual state of these package branches though; the next step is to make it check freshness. I went ahead and cleaned it up a little bit. (It now uses OptionParser, etc.) I also changed the formatting a bit and added a 14-day stale counter. (Check the last rev, if it is 14 days old, count it as stale.) We can easily set the number of days. Anyway, with that flag, I get: Also note that we have some odd bits in there. Like we have *both* 'mozilla-thunderbird' and 'thunderbird' listed (former doesn't have a branch, latter does, but it is 150 days old.) Also, we have firefox, firefox-3.0 and firefox-3.5. The first doesn't have a branch, but the last two do. With a 14 day threshold we end up with: TOTALS: 26 ok 49 stale 25 unregistered 0 otherwise broken 14 days is probably a little tight. A few entries are in the 14-20 day range. However we have a bunch of ones that are closer to 100+ days old, and I'm pretty sure those are genuinely out of date. John =:- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAktQl1MACgkQJdeBCYSNAAPz2gCcCK8RFXGyIBghqX/ilXBfM5rr GSIAn0EHzRH2RSX6RUnBWC0CFvXgeBRN =9r2B -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
2010/1/16 Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com: On January 15, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: In case people are wondering how far this has come. When we started focussing on the hottest100 a month ago we had about 90 of the hottest100 packages linked to products, and about 52 of them had working branches. Now we have 94 of them linked to products, which must be just about all that aren't special cases. Of those, 64 now have working branches. That's pretty good, though I was hoping we'd be a bit higher now, and I'm a bit surprised the second number hasn't shifted since Christmas. From where do you see this? The lpstats graph. Is http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag3S65cphSMHdG1VckNSRXI4OHBmVmxGaklGVW4tcWchl=en_GB still the place to track this? There I do see 94 linked to products, but only 60 branches linked. The spreadsheet doesn't have any bug link yet either. Is there another report, I should be watching? I think the spreadsheet should now be obsoleted in favour of having the hottest100 script track that, either calculating the data it can, or with things recorded by humans entered into its data file. That was my foreshadowed intention but I didn't get around to actually announcing it on Friday. Given that the end goal for this project is to help with daily build but also UDD, it would be nice to also see if there is a package branch available for each of those. That doesn't change anything for this particular goal, but it makes the report more useful. I think that's what my script checks? -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 18:07 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: Import exists but fails (even after retry): --- gnome-control-center This was a broken import - I've removed it and created it again to force it to import from scratch. gnome-power-manager I couldn't find the project on launchpad for this - where is it? Cheers, Jelmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:49 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: Jelmer Vernooij wrote: On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 18:07 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: Import exists but fails (even after retry): --- gnome-control-center This was a broken import - I've removed it and created it again to force it to import from scratch. gnome-power-manager I couldn't find the project on launchpad for this - where is it? The Launchpad project for that package is “gnome-power” for some reason: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/gnome-power. I'm not sure why, given that upstream also calls it gnome-power-manager... perhaps we should rename the Launchpad project while we're there? Yeah, that makes sense. We can still keep the old name as an alias. FWIW the import of gnome-power-manager fails because of a bug that's fixed in newer versions of bzr-git. mwh landed a newer version of bzr-git on Launchpad so after the next roll-out it should be a matter of hitting retry. Cheers, Jelmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
In case people are wondering how far this has come. When we started focussing on the hottest100 a month ago we had about 90 of the hottest100 packages linked to products, and about 52 of them had working branches. Now we have 94 of them linked to products, which must be just about all that aren't special cases. Of those, 64 now have working branches. That's pretty good, though I was hoping we'd be a bit higher now, and I'm a bit surprised the second number hasn't shifted since Christmas. The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a script to scan them and report those which are stale. This will also give a better way to record the specific problems with any branches that should exempt them from this experiment, or the bugs we have to fix to get them working. I plan that over the next few weeks we get branches registered for the rest of them, and then be fixing some more of the import bugs. -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
Martin Pool wrote: [...] The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a script to scan them and report those which are stale. This will also I suspect that most of the gnome ones are currently stale (hopefully my mail from yesterday is a good step towards correcting that...), so I think definitely worth checking for staleness in our monitoring of hottest100 progress. -Andrew. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
2010/1/15 Andrew Bennetts andrew.benne...@canonical.com: Martin Pool wrote: [...] The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a script to scan them and report those which are stale. This will also I suspect that most of the gnome ones are currently stale (hopefully my mail from yesterday is a good step towards correcting that...), so I think definitely worth checking for staleness in our monitoring of hottest100 progress. My script in https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~canonical-bazaar/udd/hottest100/ claims 75 ok 25 unregistered -- meaning Launchpad said there was no default branch for that package 0 otherwise broken This may say more about its stupidity than the actual state of these package branches though; the next step is to make it check freshness. -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
Andrew SB wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: To be useful, this query needs some measurement of whether the branch is fresh. This is especially true for GNOME products. A number of branches currently marked as working are still pointed at old svn repos while the projects have moved to git. The imports don't fail as the svn repos have been kept around, but lp:gnome-foo will be nearly a year behind the actual upstream. [...] I'd be happy to go through and check all the GNOME projects in the hottest100. But as I don't have the powers to actually change them, I don't know how to make it discoverable for someone who does. A message to this list? A question on LP? Would this be a good use of my time, or is someone already going to manually look through each of these branches as part of this project? Thanks for pointing this out. I do have powers to do this, so I've done part of this. I've gone through all the gnome-* projects on the +upstreamreport plus a bunch of others that are listed on https://launchpad.net/gnome, and checked to see if they have a current import, and created one if it's missing. I haven't updated the dev focus if the project already had one set, because I'm not sure if that would break something for someone. My guess is it won't break anything, can someone confirm? Here are my notes of what I did/saw: Already imported and set as dev focus (no change needed): - gnome-settings-daemon gnome-system-tools Created git imports for: at-spi: ~vcs-imports/at-spi/trunk bug-buddy: .../git-trunk ekiga: .../git-trunk eog: .../trunk file-roller: .../trunk gconf: .../trunk gconf-editor: .../trunk gnome-applets: .../trunk gnome-bluetooth: .../trunk [and set as dev focus] gnome-common: .../trunk gnome-cups-manager: .../trunk gnome-desktop: .../trunk gnome-games: .../trunk gnome-media: .../trunk gnome-terminal: .../trunk gnome-utils: .../trunk gnome-system-monitor: .../trunk gnome-screensaver: .../git-trunk Import already exists but is not dev focus: --- accerciser: ~vcs-imports/accerciser/main gedit: ~jjardon/gedit/trunk gedit-plugins: [now set] glib: ~jjardon/glib/trunk gnome-panel: ~vcs-imports/gnome-panel/master Import exists but fails (even after retry): --- gnome-control-center gnome-power-manager Any project not listed I didn't look at. As you can see there are now many branches on this list that aren't set as the development focus that probably should be. There are also lots of ~gnome-bzr-mirror branches that should probably just be deleted, at least the “remote” ones. -Andrew. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
Here are some specific things people can do to help with hottest100: * work out how to make package-product links (explain that here :-) and create them when they're missing * update the branches pointing to obsolete imports (gnome etc) * write a script that checks the date of the last revision on these branches and complains if it's more than say 14 days old - it probably indicates the import is stalled or points to an obsolete branch * progress the bugs mentioned in this thread and/or tag them hottest100 * scan the failing branches, determine which bug causes the failure, mention the branch in the bug and put the bug number in the spreadsheet against that branch * work out if there is an api to get the import failure messages, and use it to automatically match up the tracebacks against the bugs -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
2010/1/8 James Westby jw+deb...@jameswestby.net: On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:58:04 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: Here are some specific things people can do to help with hottest100: * work out how to make package-product links (explain that here :-) and create them when they're missing Just a note that https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+upstreamreport has live data to help with this. Missing corresponding project means that a package-product link needs to be created (and sometimes a product too). The lack of a Bazaar icon means there is no default branch. Note that I went over this list a few weeks back registered a bunch of imports, and created the LP question to have them set as the development focus. That's still not done, and that's why I keep bringing it up, because you will often be duplicating effort if you look in to them. Thanks for pointing that out. Other things on my list may be redundant with other posts too, so my list was more of threads for people to pull on. This says nothing about how up-to-date all that information is though. A (preferably semi-automatic) check that everything is up-to-date would be good. This does raise other questions in my mind. Are we excluding some packages before we really start? I don't know. I guess we only would be if the top 100 list was not actually the 100 most important packages. I'm not actually sure where that list comes from. Ultimately there are more than 100 packages that matter, and starting with 100 fairly important packages is reasonable. We can go on to more later. Is implementing bzr-monotone going to be something that falls under the hottest100 project? If some of them are in mt that will be useful data. I doubt it will be so many of them that it represents a good cost/benefit tradeoff, though it might be worth doing a fastimport from mt. I think it's reasonable for us to conclude this project with some number of packages essentially classed 'wontfix (for now)', if they would require a lot of work that would not help many packages. But there should be few like that, and it should be a specific justified decision. There are also a few cases where we have two packages for one upstream repo, and some where there isn't really an upstream (aside from things like update-manager, linux-restricted-modules for instance). What will be done about the KDE packages, their upstream is one mega-repo. I don't know yet. I'd like to start by getting those packages marked with a bug number that describes the situation. The larger point of hottest100 is to allow daily builds of those packages. If there is no upstream I don't know if the question even means anything. If there is an upstream but it's quirky again perhaps it's reasonable to say we just don't support it yet. -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:39:02 Jonathan Lange wrote: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote: On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:38:53 Jonathan Lange wrote: So the associating development focus does not seem to have been done. Again, I don't think I have access to actually change any of this stuff. (And obviously neither do you, or you probably would have done it. :) Exactly. It will generally need someone in Registry Admin to do it for us. In general, it's the project Maintainer (and maybe the Driver) who can do that. You can find out who this is by looking at the project overview page. Curtis, is this correct? Do you have any ideas as to how we can safely open this up? I was talking with Curtis about this this morning. I have a branch ready to go that adds bazaar-experts and registry-experts. This will allow any CHR person to change the links rather than just a LOSA. CHR people aren't in bazaar-experts -- it's a tightly restricted team, since it grants global branch write access. jml CHR people aren't in bazaar-experts, but they are in registry-experts. Tim -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:33:29 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: I put jml's query output into a Google spreadsheet, so that we can annotate lines with the relevant bug etc. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag3S65cphSMHdG1VckNSRXI4OHBmVmxGaklGVW4tcWchl=en_GB. I'll put another plug in for https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/94298 which will push the percentage of branches in that spreadsheet much higher. Thanks, James P.S. Naming a project also helps with searching for the mails about it, thanks. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Westby wrote: On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:33:29 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: I put jml's query output into a Google spreadsheet, so that we can annotate lines with the relevant bug etc. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag3S65cphSMHdG1VckNSRXI4OHBmVmxGaklGVW4tcWchl=en_GB. I'll put another plug in for https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/94298 which will push the percentage of branches in that spreadsheet much higher. Thanks, James P.S. Naming a project also helps with searching for the mails about it, thanks. So... how do we do that? Who gets assigned that task? I certainly don't feel like I have any ability to make that change. I'll also note that all of the move these branches to ~vcs-imports links are 'broken', so I assume they have already been done. However, I can see stuff like: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/wine/git-trunk is listed, but https://edge.launchpad.net/wine has a 'trunk series' here: https://edge.launchpad.net/wine/trunk But has not associated branch. So the associating development focus does not seem to have been done. Again, I don't think I have access to actually change any of this stuff. (And obviously neither do you, or you probably would have done it. :) John =:- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAktDaYgACgkQJdeBCYSNAAPZKACgoSfD/pdVC+RD5m7RAJMw56jx MgMAn2Rub/eGbc4kRGhEtuz2ikaidyDE =/a4N -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:32:08 -0600, John Arbash Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com wrote: So... how do we do that? Who gets assigned that task? I certainly don't feel like I have any ability to make that change. I think it's normally the job of the LP CHR. I was hoping one of the LP people on the list would help with that. I'll also note that all of the move these branches to ~vcs-imports links are 'broken', so I assume they have already been done. Yep, Tom did those for us. However, I can see stuff like: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/wine/git-trunk is listed, but https://edge.launchpad.net/wine has a 'trunk series' here: https://edge.launchpad.net/wine/trunk But has not associated branch. So the associating development focus does not seem to have been done. Again, I don't think I have access to actually change any of this stuff. (And obviously neither do you, or you probably would have done it. :) Exactly. It will generally need someone in Registry Admin to do it for us. I'm just bringing it up here as the question itself isn't getting the attention, and doing these operations will help with the hottest100 goal. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: To be useful, this query needs some measurement of whether the branch is fresh. This is especially true for GNOME products. A number of branches currently marked as working are still pointed at old svn repos while the projects have moved to git. The imports don't fail as the svn repos have been kept around, but lp:gnome-foo will be nearly a year behind the actual upstream. For instance, a quick spot check shows: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/gnome-terminal/main points to http://svn.gnome.org/svn/gnome-terminal/trunk https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/gnome-utils/main points to http://svn.gnome.org/svn/gnome-utils/trunk https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/gnome-screensaver/trunk points to http://svn.gnome.org/svn/gnome-screensaver/trunk They respectively should be: git://git.gnome.org/gnome-terminal git://git.gnome.org/gnome-utils git://git.gnome.org/gnome-screensaver I'd be happy to go through and check all the GNOME projects in the hottest100. But as I don't have the powers to actually change them, I don't know how to make it discoverable for someone who does. A message to this list? A question on LP? Would this be a good use of my time, or is someone already going to manually look through each of these branches as part of this project? Thanks! - Andrew Starr-Bochicchio -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
2010/1/5 Ian Clatworthy ian.clatwor...@canonical.com: Martin Pool wrote: I think after the break we should focus on the vcs-imports of the top 100 Ubuntu packages until they're all working well. jml and spm helped with some scripts to query their current state, and we can map that into a spreadsheet showing the root cause for each failure. OK, so let's do it! Following Kiko's maximum about naming, I dub this Hottest 100. It will help make daily builds useful, it should shake out some useful bugs, and we may be able to get good visible progress quite soon. I'd ask people on the Bazaar team to be putting most of their forward development time into this, either analysis or actually fixing the bugs that come out. So what do we do now? * start tagging bugs hottest100 if fixing them will let us get more branches imported * fix those bugs * jml gave me a data dump of the package states; I'll put that up on the web in an accessible form * let's mark bugs against each of those failing imports * there are some items posted earlier in this thread that we should chase up as far as registering branches, development focuses, etc, especially https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+question/81994 (remove gnome svn imports) and https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/94298 (put some git branches into production) -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: 2010/1/5 Ian Clatworthy ian.clatwor...@canonical.com: Martin Pool wrote: I think after the break we should focus on the vcs-imports of the top 100 Ubuntu packages until they're all working well. jml and spm helped with some scripts to query their current state, and we can map that into a spreadsheet showing the root cause for each failure. OK, so let's do it! Following Kiko's maximum about naming, I dub this Hottest 100. It will help make daily builds useful, it should shake out some useful bugs, and we may be able to get good visible progress quite soon. I'd ask people on the Bazaar team to be putting most of their forward development time into this, either analysis or actually fixing the bugs that come out. So what do we do now? * start tagging bugs hottest100 if fixing them will let us get more branches imported Yay. * fix those bugs * jml gave me a data dump of the package states; I'll put that up on the web in an accessible form See also: - https://lpstats.canonical.com/graphs/PackagesWithUpstreamBranchesTop100/ - https://lpstats.canonical.com/graphs/PackagesWithUpstreamBranchesMain/ jml -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
I put jml's query output into a Google spreadsheet, so that we can annotate lines with the relevant bug etc. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag3S65cphSMHdG1VckNSRXI4OHBmVmxGaklGVW4tcWchl=en_GB. Some observations: Some aren't linked to products; that's probably easily fixed. In some cases multiple packages are linked to the same product, like various versions of grub, firefox, and linux. That's probably ok. However, some are linked to the same branch, which is probably wrong. To be useful, this query needs some measurement of whether the branch is fresh. By matching up the branch names against the previously posted failure report, we can either identify some things thought to be working but actually not, or put specific bugs against things that are failing. So that we don't shift the goalposts we could keep the list of packages the same across this project. Maybe we should put it into a file in a branch in the udd project, then we can use it in scripts that prod Launchpad to find out the freshness of the branches etc. Does someone want to try this? -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
I think after the break we should focus on the vcs-imports of the top 100 Ubuntu packages until they're all working well. jml and spm helped with some scripts to query their current state, and we can map that into a spreadsheet showing the root cause for each failure. I'll ask the Bazaar team to put most of their forward-development time into this until they're either all working or we've specifically chosen something else. We won't ignore other things people bring up but we won't look for trouble elsewhere til we're done. We can focus on this at our mini-sprint in Strasbourg and I hope pair with Jelmer on debugging some of the failures. -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:49:14 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: I think after the break we should focus on the vcs-imports of the top 100 Ubuntu packages until they're all working well. jml and spm helped with some scripts to query their current state, and we can map that into a spreadsheet showing the root cause for each failure. If you can get someone to move on https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/94298 then it will make your numbers more representative. You can use https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+upstreamreport to track which packages don't have a VCS by looking for a lack of a Bazaar icon. Checking the ones that do to ensure that it points to somewhere useful would probably be wise too. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 12:02 +, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:36 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote: On December 16, 2009, John Arbash Meinel wrote: Francis J. Lacoste wrote: On December 15, 2009, Martin Pool wrote: I just had a good talk with James about what the Bazaar team could do to help UDD move forward. We are making progress on some particular bugs but the analysis feels a bit inchoate. So my theory is that we will be more efficient if we pick a clearer focus to do first. We talked about: * vcs imports - very visible so could be good, but not a pressing problem now Well, the linux kernel import is still not working. And that's with the recent fixes to bzr-git by Jelmer and the improved memory usage by John. So there are things to improve there. So I think the kernel is probably good for visibility, it certainly isn't worthwhile from a people are going to start using bzr to develop the kernel sort of thing. It's more than for visibility, having an import of the kernel is a prerequisite for doing udd and daily builds with it. Would it perhaps be an option to have the import system only import e.g. only 1000 revisions at a time? This would make the memory leaks less of a problem, and it should make the scheduling of code imports a bit fairer, since large branches would not keep the system busy for a long time. The overhead of resuming an existing import should be relatively small. Another advantage that such an approach would have is that imports for which one of the last few steps in the process fails (such as creating the branch after fetching the revisions) would not have such a burden on the system as they have now as there are at most 1000 revisions fetched per time for broken imports. E.g. if importing revision 121453 of the Linux kernel failed then the system would only repeatedly try to fetch revisions 121000 to 121453 a couple of times before giving up completely. Cheers, Jelmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Westby wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:19:32 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: My hypothesis is that we (Canonical's Bazaar team) will get to grips with UDD better if there is a tighter medium-term focus. The key question is whether vcs-imports is that thing, or not. If we do make imports that one important thing then I'll be asking people not to work on looms, UDD merge support, or nested trees until they're done. What would you consider done. Do you think that with 4 months effort you could get to 0 outstanding failures, or would there be some other stop point? Thanks, James I would guess that needs to be evaluated on the fly. If we are getting to the point of diminishing returns, then it is reasonable to re-evaluate what our priority should be. John =:- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAksqohEACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMTdQCfU/gloeg//018F19heyvJeqQz 824AoNVQABCMCu9D3SGJBUyyo5xtQ85s =khW1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
On 12/17/2009 04:00 PM, James Westby wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:19:32 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: My hypothesis is that we (Canonical's Bazaar team) will get to grips with UDD better if there is a tighter medium-term focus. The key question is whether vcs-imports is that thing, or not. If we do make imports that one important thing then I'll be asking people not to work on looms, UDD merge support, or nested trees until they're done. What would you consider done. Do you think that with 4 months effort you could get to 0 outstanding failures, or would there be some other stop point? I am definitely not a primary stakeholder in this thread, so take my input with a bucket of salt. I am absolutely fascinated by the work being done here, and very excited as the manager of an upstream team who also maintains packages in Ubuntu to be able to use UDD. Trying to decide between two important bits of work in a large connected system is always tough. Thinking about this last night and today, imports seem like a long tail kind of problem, where it's hard to declare done as James points out. It seems like doing UDD requires several pieces, one of which is an import, and other pieces which are merge support, nested trees, looms or pipelines. I don't know how many of the imports are working, so I'm going to pretend that it's 80%. Maybe one way of asking this question is: is it better to first fully enable UDD for 80% of the packages (the ones with working imports), or more important to partially enable UDD for 100% of the packages by driving imports to 100%? I'm probably biased because as an upstream with most projects in bzr and happy with the current git imports I'm not one of the folks with a broken import, but I'd rather see the work on nested trees, UDD merge, looms, etc. even knowing that it would postpone having working imports for some percentage of packages. My reasoning is that imports are a very well understood task, and it's not likely that in the course of driving imports to 100% that we would learn anything new. However, UDD merge, looms, nested trees are features that would definitely influence the UDD workflow and tools and tutorials that grow around that workflow, and postponing would perhaps make the UDD experience suboptimal for all packages. When working on a large system and choosing between working on a well-understood problem or hooking up some new parts of the system that might hold some yet-undiscovered problem or change the flow of data through the system, my bias definitely goes towards discovering the new problems and hooking up the new parts. Whichever you end up choosing, I'm so thrilled to see progress on UDD. This is going to absolutely rock. -- Elliot Murphy | https://launchpad.net/~statik/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
2009/12/18 John Arbash Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com: James Westby wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:19:32 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote: My hypothesis is that we (Canonical's Bazaar team) will get to grips with UDD better if there is a tighter medium-term focus. The key question is whether vcs-imports is that thing, or not. If we do make imports that one important thing then I'll be asking people not to work on looms, UDD merge support, or nested trees until they're done. What would you consider done. Do you think that with 4 months effort you could get to 0 outstanding failures, or would there be some other stop point? I would guess that needs to be evaluated on the fly. If we are getting to the point of diminishing returns, then it is reasonable to re-evaluate what our priority should be. +1 The input data is messy enough that we may never get it to zero failures, so maybe done is a poor word compared to enough: defined as the point where other things are becoming clearly more important, or the remaining bugs have a poor cost:benefit. We may actually already be at that point now. Since it's a long tail problem, we don't want to set up our goal as having zero failures or doing vcs-imports as an end in itself, but rather to relate it to larger needs. Thus this thread. There's some up front cost to getting into the analysis of import failures, so if we do focus on that we would want to persist with it for a few months. It's hard to estimate until we get further into it but it's possible that four months would get many of them cleared. It's a fairly large commitment and opportunity cost. I do think Elliot has a good point though, that fixing imports is not going to really teach us important things about the structure of the problem. If we had UDD or build-from-branch totally working on some packages, but people were blocked from using it widely because of failing imports, then it would be clearly the right time to do it. -- Martin http://launchpad.net/~mbp/ -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ... Well, yes, I guess that would be possible. It would also be possible for bzr-git or even bzr to do this as well -- currently we have real problems with the amount of memory bzr serve processes use... #1) I added '-Dhpss' so we can figure out where that memory is really going. If it is old format repos, then 2.1.0b3 won't address that. #2) In my testing, 2a format repos don't benefit from partial fetching nearly as much as older formats. Mostly because we can pack a significant amount of history into a single groupcompress block. If you request only some of the texts from it, the server will break it apart for you. But if you are running over a dumb transport, you just get to download the whole thing, and break it apart yourself. I tried doing this to get emacs when my connection was flakey. Downloading half the repo downloaded pretty much all of it. This would make the memory leaks less of a problem, and it should make the scheduling of code imports a bit fairer, since large branches would not keep the system busy for a long time. It would also need some work so that we don't publish an import until the import actually finishes, I think that would be quite confusing. The overhead of resuming an existing import should be relatively small. Yeah. Let's talk about this in Wellington if we don't get to it before then :-) Cheers, mwh I should note that *imports* should be different, and checkpointing every so often is a good thing. (InterDifferingSerializer writes to disk every 100 revs, triggering an autopack every 1000 revs or so.) John =:- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAksq3dUACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMRJACcCiMzbpLDE2P9LDf1Y8wAIQ0i z4EAn2INIv2TwgYhx85YtnjS5RReABM6 =xP6q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
Jelmer Vernooij wrote: On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 19:41 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote: This would make the memory leaks less of a problem, and it should make the scheduling of code imports a bit fairer, since large branches would not keep the system busy for a long time. It would also need some work so that we don't publish an import until the import actually finishes, I think that would be quite confusing. Is it really problematic if an import is behind on the foreign branch while it is being filled in, rather than being empty as is the case now? Hm, true. Some effort in the UI would probably make this ok. Cheers, mwh -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:27:38 you wrote: Tim Penhey wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:01:39 you wrote: Just to mention this is pretty much how all imports/conversions work. 'starts quickly and [] slows down'. Both because the ancestry gets longer, but tree size usually goes up significantly, etc. But one revision a minute? Tim Well, that was how long OOo used to take when we first started trying a couple years ago. It would tend to happen if you do something that is O(tree) instead of O(changes). And certainly if there is something that is O(ancestry). Usually we do quite a bit better. I think importing the linux kernel via fast-import is in the 1000/min range. Slowing down to... 500/min? I think Qt is much slower at around 40/min, but still not 1/min. Also considering that there is 150k revisions to import. As far as memory leaks go, the imports creep up to 1 gig rss and often get killed by the LOSAs. Tim -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
