On Aug 31, 2013, at 01:37 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: >In the end, this meant that using UDD had some minor benefits (a richer >history, and theoretical improved merge support)
I'd argue that they were more than minor benefits! >but there were a number of extra things you had to watch out for that made it >frustrating to use: manually checking sure that the branch was in sync with >the archive before using it (and giving up on UDD or prodding us if it >wasn't), It was really great when you guys added the feature to bzr to actually do this check and tell you if the branch was up-to-date or not. >making sure you pushed the right changes to the UDD branches (otherwise they >would be overwritten by the automatic importer). I learned never to push a UDD branch. I almost never had problems when I let the importer update the branch on upload, rather than try to push a branch. The downside is that there could be a lag between upload and branch import, but it hasn't really been much of a problem in practice. >Cloning one of the bzr branches can also be quite slow because of performance >issues in bzr that took a long time to fix, and because Launchpad is in the >UK, whereas there are a lot of mirrors of the Ubuntu archive. I never found the performance issues to be a hindrance, but I have a good internet connection. Besides, over time this was ameliorated by using bzr shared repos. >I always considered having the .pc/ directory checked in and the patches >applied by default for the quilt format a mistake, as it lead to tons of >spurious conflicts during merges. It's nice that a source branch gives you a fully unpacked and patched tree which you can start hacking on immediately, but it was tricky to get quilt interaction right, especially when doing merges. Another important lesson is to be sure that when committing a branch (say for a merge proposal), you do it at the same quilt push "level" as the original branch. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
