On Nov 13, 2013, at 04:28 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote: >For UDD, if we can't commit to the branch, then there's zero benefit in >even using it as the source branch as I could just as well use apt-get >source, which will get me the current package from the archive (which >UDD doesn't necessarily give me...), then apply changes and push that.
For simple package changes, you could have a point, but I rarely encounter simple package changes specifically in Ubuntu. Usually I'm merging a new upstream, or Debian version, and then local version control is often a godsend. Sometimes the merge goes badly, or you have conflicts, or it's not enough to get a working Ubuntu package. I can do the merge, commit that local change, and then do further commits locally as I refine the package to build and work properly. I can diff between revisions, revert changes, etc. E.g. all the benefits of version control. I can create side branches of my main branch to try things out, then merge them back into my main branch. All this is especially useful if you are working on a package over some span of time. apt-get source is like performing without a net. Let's say you head down the wrong path while updating a package. It's very difficult to backup and try again, take side travels for experimentation, etc. Oh, and chdist is nice, but I prefer having ubuntu:<series>{,-proposed}/<package> branches. >Not having commit rights to the UDD branch would make UDD a simple >archiving service and based on its current state, a pretty bad one at >that. > >To clarifiy my position, I really like UDD and I think that kind of VCS >integration is what we want for the distro, but it's never been working >reliably enough to gain sufficient momentum. > >In a perfect world, I'd have a VCS repository containing branches for >all Ubuntu series and pockets, for the various Debian releases and for >the upstream code, making any rebase/cherry-pick trivial and having LP >trigger builds on either a special signed commit or a signed tag. > >Also in that perfect world, the inner workings of our upload process >would be tied to that, so that it wouldn't be possible for the branch to >be out of sync with the archive. This could be achieved by either making >this the only way to upload or making the "legacy" upload path, commit >to the branch and export from there prior to processing. I'll agree with you there. I'd love to live in this world. :) -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel