Jonathan Lange wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Martin Pool <[email protected]> wrote: >> (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. >> > > The subject of your email is phrased as a question, but the content is > an answer, and I think it's a good one. > >> 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. >> > > FWIW, the edge codehosting service is waiting on our IS team to do > some network configuration. > >> 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. >> > > This would indeed be interesting. It would require a lot of work.
A wrinkle might come with plugin compatiblity. We currently use bzr-git and soon will use bzr-svn and hopefully bzr-hg. /Perhaps/ we should look at using the stable bzr for code imports -- I don't think this would actually be particularly hard, technically speaking (you'd just need to specify a different buildout.cfg for the launchpad trees on the import slaves, and make sure that the rest of launchpad at least imports with the stable branch of bzr). Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
