Review and Planning for Distributed Development
This session is for reviewing the state of Distributed Development, and planning for
the next cycle.
Blueprint information
- Status:
- Not started
- Approver:
- Steve Langasek
- Priority:
- High
- Drafter:
- Barry Warsaw
- Direction:
- Approved
- Assignee:
- Martin Pool
- Definition:
- Approved
- Series goal:
- Accepted for oneiric
- Implementation:
- Not started
- Milestone target:
- None
- Started by
- Completed by
Whiteboard
Work items:
[poolie] get network performance for udd closer to apt-get source: TODO
[poolie] categorize package import failures: TODO
[poolie] make sure bugs are file for all failure classes: TODO
[poolie] fix top two import failures: TODO
[poolie] reduce failures by 50%: TODO
[poolie] bring package imports in-house: TODO
(Maverick Notes Below)
Review and Planning for Distributed Development
=======
Problems:
* deleted upstream source files after merge
* ACTION: Micah needs to file a bug with more details
* pulled a maintained package
* package branch and upstream branch had parallel history
* case where Debian is in bzr is not handled well [garyvdm]
* upstream in bzr and no common history
- need to reconcile them together- will cause a bump
* similar case with Vcs-Bzr and Vcs-* parallel imports in Debian and Ubuntu
ACTION: Make docs about how to tell the importer to pull from Debian
branch availible. - GaryvdM
* Debian imports will become a critical system - importer, gina(?),
- also who to contact in case of a failure
- Monitoring of GINA and define SLA on it
- and what constitutes a critical failure
* Problems with the version in the bzr branch being older than the
one in the archive and it wasn't synced back
- bugs in the importer
* Tools should be hiding complexity not introducing it
- just putting one commit into a branch vs just uploading the
package doesn't seem to help much [scottk]
* Until it's easier than regular tools, there won't be much uptake (especially
for the MOTU cases)
* See https:/
* Ideally, getting the code via bzr would be as fast & easy as downloading
the tarball
* Benefits will not come in the simple case, but by enabling more complex case
* bzr annotate for example
* many people working on the package
* Performance implications of big branches like KDE
* Long downloads, huge space constraints
* Hard for new contributors
* bzr limitations prevents some package import
* lintian for example
* 500 failures on about 16k
* Maintaining patches as patches
* Upstream Debian KDE maintainers use a patches directory
* ACTION: add Table of Contents to http://
page to reduce confusion
* Support repacked tarballs (e.g. firefox)
* Launchpad should mark things as fix released automatically (things that were commited)
* Launchpad should be able to build the package on mark-uploaded (change name?) - no more dput
* More (findable!) documentation
* Don't treat everyone the same way
* Don't wait until everything is utopia before we start promoting to some
* Want deb-aware diffs to be shown in code review
* Want to send a customized diff to debian
* e.g. xchat is not the default irc server in debian, is in ubuntu
* e.g. nmu uploads have different requirements for changelogs between U&D
* sometimes just the changelog needs to be different
(Possible solutions from bzr: Daggy fixes, or Cherry picks.)
* Show the diff targeted at upstream in the bug?
* Want plain testing of
* ACTION: add hook to bzr to automatically add revision property based on
commit message
* Could launchpad not email me the branch info after the upload every time.