(Launchpad bounced my mail during the upgrade today)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Martin Pool <[email protected]> Date: 2009/9/24 Subject: which version of bzr for launchpad? To: Launchpad Community Development Team <[email protected]>, Robert Collins <[email protected]>, John Arbash Meinel <[email protected]>, Ian Clatworthy <[email protected]>, Vincent Ladeuil <[email protected]>, Andrew Bennetts <[email protected]> I had a talk to jml and thumper about this recently, and thought I would send a note here for the larger audience. Bazaar now maintains two branches, a stable/bugfix-only 2.0 branch, and an ongoing development branch 2.1dev. (See <http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/developers/cycle.html>). As much as we can, we will make no changes to 2.0 that will break api compatibility, or any other kind. They will be able to interoperate on both the network and formats. The development branch may introduce new data formats, though we don't immediately anticipate doing this. It likely will add new smartserver verbs, but it will have a fallback for older servers. 2.1 will still be tested and get the same degree of care we always have, but we'll be a bit more free to remove deprecated or non-user-affecting compatibility code. So the only difference is the rate of change, not the degree of quality. The question then arises which version Launchpad should run for codehosting, and the answer is that it will run the development branch, 2.1b1 etc. People using old clients should be fine, and people using new features or formats introduced in the development branch will be able to use them against Launchpad. As we change APIs, Launchpad may need to update their own code, but they do this anyhow as part of their monthly integrations and it is not onerous. Launchpad will at some point in the future add an edge codehost, which will run Launchpad's own tip, then be merged to the lpnet (ie stable) servers in monthly releases. edge will run only slightly ahead with the bzr version, for example being on 2.1b2 when lpnet is on 2.1b1. This gives some opportunity for testing. The biggest risk seems to be that a change in 2.1.x may introduce bugs, either to do with operation with old clients or otherwise. The best way to address this is (aside from general quality development) to test each release as it's integrated on the staging and edge codehost. At least this way we will find any such issues earlier in bzr's cycle rather than at the 2.1rc1 point. It may be interesting in the future to allow the client to specify the remote bzr commandname as eg 'bzr-2.0' and then we could have several available servers on the Launchpad side; this would require including multiple bzr trees in the deployment. -- Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/> -- Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
