Re: Vcs branches, debcheckout, and UDD
I think for UDD it is important to have the wt, but I think we could do.better about making the branches subset compatible. The package importer already uses several branches to try and match file ids. This could be another. The history would be divergent, but you could use "bzr merge -rx..y" rather than diff/patch. John =:-> On Jul 6, 2011 11:00 PM, "Barry Warsaw" wrote: > On Jul 06, 2011, at 04:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>One of the big questions I don't see addressed is packaging versus full >>source branches. In Kubuntu (and I'm pretty sure Ubuntu Desktop) we use >>packaging branches that only have the debian dir in them. We've discussed >>this and there wasn't a lot of interest in switching to full source branches. > > I tried to touch on that with this bit: > >>On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 04:43:00 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: >>> ask Launchpad to essentially make the UDD branch and the Vcs-Bzr branch >>> one and the same, so either approach will work. This seems trickier since >>> the UDD branch has the full source code, while the Vcs-Bzr branch has only >>> the debian/ directory (and apt-gets the source). > > but I agree that this needs more attention. Although I like having the full > source branches, I can see the appeal of packaging-only branches. Any > solution needs to be adaptive to both styles of working. > > -Barry -- 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: Vcs branches, debcheckout, and UDD
On Jul 06, 2011, at 04:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >One of the big questions I don't see addressed is packaging versus full >source branches. In Kubuntu (and I'm pretty sure Ubuntu Desktop) we use >packaging branches that only have the debian dir in them. We've discussed >this and there wasn't a lot of interest in switching to full source branches. I tried to touch on that with this bit: >On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 04:43:00 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: >> ask Launchpad to essentially make the UDD branch and the Vcs-Bzr branch >> one and the same, so either approach will work. This seems trickier since >> the UDD branch has the full source code, while the Vcs-Bzr branch has only >> the debian/ directory (and apt-gets the source). but I agree that this needs more attention. Although I like having the full source branches, I can see the appeal of packaging-only branches. Any solution needs to be adaptive to both styles of working. -Barry signature.asc Description: 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: Vcs branches, debcheckout, and UDD
On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 04:43:00 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > There was a discussion today on #ubuntu-devel about some changes I'd made > to a few packages for bug 788514 (switch to dh_python2). gedit is a good > representative example of the basic issue. > > What I did was to `bzr branch ubuntu:gedit`, then make the changes to that > branch, `bzr bd -S`, and dput the resulting .dsc file. All well and good I > thought, but actually this caused some trouble because gedit has a Vcs-Bzr > branch: > > $ debcheckout -p gedit > bzr https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-desktop/gedit/ubuntu > > which is *not* the UDD branch, even if we substitute bzr+ssh for http. > > I just spent an hour manually copying the diff from several UDD branches to > their Vcs branches, because 1) I'd already uploaded the change, and 2) the > branches share no history so you can't merge between them. > > I think this is somewhat related to the native package discussion we've had > w.r.t. software-center, but it's also somewhat different. Or maybe not: > > $ debcheckout -p software-center > bzr https://code.launchpad.net/~software-store-developers/software- center/t > runk > > A couple of things bother me here: > > * We shouldn't be suggesting to people to use the UDD branch if the Vcs > branch is preferred. > * We probably don't want to suggest that any Vcs branch, or even any > Vcs-Bzr branch should automatically use the Vcs branch instead of the UDD > branch, since Debian packages can specify either, and for those, the UDD > branch would still be appropriate. > * Should debcheckout be taught about UDD branches and rules, or should bzr > be taught about Vcs-Bzr branches? > * Using an unmodified Vcs-Bzr url isn't ideal, since we'd almost always > prefer the bzr+ssh version (i.e. `debcheckout -a`) over the https version. > * tumbleweed, seb128 and others suggested some mungification of Vcs-* into > an XS-$Vendor-Vcs-* field, possibly by update-maintainer, but I don't grok > all the details of what that would mean. > * I can see how `debcheckout` is pretty useful, but I don't much like it > better than normal UDD workflows. > * There's no foolproof rule to know when to use the Vcs branch over the UDD > branch. > > Maybe, a heuristic would be, look for a Vcs-Bzr header matched with a > -0ubuntuX version number and/or "ubuntu" in the branch url. In those cases > maybe `bzr branch ubuntu:foo` would complain, or just do the moral > equivalent of `debcheckout -a foo`. > > Or maybe, what we've talked about for software-center applies here. E.g. > ask Launchpad to essentially make the UDD branch and the Vcs-Bzr branch > one and the same, so either approach will work. This seems trickier since > the UDD branch has the full source code, while the Vcs-Bzr branch has only > the debian/ directory (and apt-gets the source). > > You guys are way smarter about this stuff than me, so I hope you'll have > some awesome suggestions. :) Even if it's not solvable right now, I think > it's important to get it on the UDD radar since debcheckout is how a lot > of folks work, and I'd like to save future developers the wasted effort of > changing the wrong branch. One of the big questions I don't see addressed is packaging versus full source branches. In Kubuntu (and I'm pretty sure Ubuntu Desktop) we use packaging branches that only have the debian dir in them. We've discussed this and there wasn't a lot of interest in switching to full source branches. Scott K -- 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
Vcs branches, debcheckout, and UDD
There was a discussion today on #ubuntu-devel about some changes I'd made to a few packages for bug 788514 (switch to dh_python2). gedit is a good representative example of the basic issue. What I did was to `bzr branch ubuntu:gedit`, then make the changes to that branch, `bzr bd -S`, and dput the resulting .dsc file. All well and good I thought, but actually this caused some trouble because gedit has a Vcs-Bzr branch: $ debcheckout -p gedit bzr https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-desktop/gedit/ubuntu which is *not* the UDD branch, even if we substitute bzr+ssh for http. I just spent an hour manually copying the diff from several UDD branches to their Vcs branches, because 1) I'd already uploaded the change, and 2) the branches share no history so you can't merge between them. I think this is somewhat related to the native package discussion we've had w.r.t. software-center, but it's also somewhat different. Or maybe not: $ debcheckout -p software-center bzr https://code.launchpad.net/~software-store-developers/software-center/trunk A couple of things bother me here: * We shouldn't be suggesting to people to use the UDD branch if the Vcs branch is preferred. * We probably don't want to suggest that any Vcs branch, or even any Vcs-Bzr branch should automatically use the Vcs branch instead of the UDD branch, since Debian packages can specify either, and for those, the UDD branch would still be appropriate. * Should debcheckout be taught about UDD branches and rules, or should bzr be taught about Vcs-Bzr branches? * Using an unmodified Vcs-Bzr url isn't ideal, since we'd almost always prefer the bzr+ssh version (i.e. `debcheckout -a`) over the https version. * tumbleweed, seb128 and others suggested some mungification of Vcs-* into an XS-$Vendor-Vcs-* field, possibly by update-maintainer, but I don't grok all the details of what that would mean. * I can see how `debcheckout` is pretty useful, but I don't much like it better than normal UDD workflows. * There's no foolproof rule to know when to use the Vcs branch over the UDD branch. Maybe, a heuristic would be, look for a Vcs-Bzr header matched with a -0ubuntuX version number and/or "ubuntu" in the branch url. In those cases maybe `bzr branch ubuntu:foo` would complain, or just do the moral equivalent of `debcheckout -a foo`. Or maybe, what we've talked about for software-center applies here. E.g. ask Launchpad to essentially make the UDD branch and the Vcs-Bzr branch one and the same, so either approach will work. This seems trickier since the UDD branch has the full source code, while the Vcs-Bzr branch has only the debian/ directory (and apt-gets the source). You guys are way smarter about this stuff than me, so I hope you'll have some awesome suggestions. :) Even if it's not solvable right now, I think it's important to get it on the UDD radar since debcheckout is how a lot of folks work, and I'd like to save future developers the wasted effort of changing the wrong branch. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: 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
