On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:06:44AM +0000, Dave Walker wrote: > On 08/03/11 02:45, Bryce Harrington wrote: > <SNIP> > >719324: ubuntu-geoip - GET should be uppercase > > Already approved, uploaded and pushed to bzr trunk > > > <SNIP> > > I starting reviewing this one the other day and left it as a > "Comment" rather than "Needs Fixing". The proposed branch (now > merged) edits the upstream code directly, but the package is of > format 3.0 (quilt). I admit I should have set a more appropriate > review type. Additionally, I commented that perhaps it should be > contributed directly upstream (particularly as it's a package native > to Ubuntu), and has a Ubuntu derived Vcs-* field defined in > debian/control. > > This means that the changes have been generated into an automagic > patch in debian/patches/debian-changes-0.0.2-0ubuntu5. Now we have > a situation where what is in the archive [0], doesn't match what is > in the UDD branch [1]. > > Last week, I had a similar situation where I dput'd and pushed to > the UDD bzr at the same time, and someone else uploaded the same > version bump around 10 minutes before me; causing mine to be > rejected and theirs was now already accepted. > > I was worried about this, so James Westby kindly explained that a > branch mismatch between the archive and UDD should mean that the > package-importer uncommits, land the version from the archive and > raises a merge proposal for the delta (nice!), however there seems > to be a bug at the moment. Although, neither the Maintainer, Last > Uploader or Signer (sponsor) is made aware of it automagically. > > Now, this is a tricky situation because we have three differing > branches. Those that normally upload this package are no doubt > expecting their Vcs-* branch to have trumps, so will continue > committing there. If they attempt to upload > 0.0.2-0ubuntu4_0.0.2-0ubuntu5, they'll become aware that there is a > difference by their package being rejected. However, if they were > to upload a new upstream version, the resolution that this bug was > trying to address will be lost. > > When I was reviewing this branch, I did try and reconcile the UDD > ancestor based merge proposal and the ~ubuntu-desktop one, but lack > of common ancestor and attempting to declare a base rev seemed to > fail.... and for the small size of the patch, i gave up and > suggested the merge proposal author rebase against the Vcs-* branch. > I was tempted to do this myself setting the --author tag > appropriately, but there is a fine line between trying to be helpful > (do the right thing), and doing too much. Equally, I didn't feel > comfortable committing to another teams branch, as I have commit > access to lp:~ubuntu-desktop/* through inheritance of teams, rather > than direct membership... which would mean raising a new merge > proposal... which takes the original author out of the loop. > > Another issue i'd like to raise that is related is UDD mismatches, > there is an example here - not a major one, but another minimal > example is [2]. A merge proposal author has gone to the effort of > submitting code based on a UDD branch, which is the wrong version as > the package-import failed; this means that somebody needs to > reconcile the versions... without a current UDD branch, this is near > impossible - which means reverting back to traditional development > by creating a bzr based debdiff to apply to the the flat source... > meaning that UDD has not won this situation. > > I think what I am trying to raise, is some work flow process... > > * With traditional development, we get a warning if we apt-get > source and a Vcs-* field is set, with UDD we do not.
I'd wanted to do things the UDD way and got the branch using bzr lp:ubuntu/ubuntu-geoip and didn't look at the debian control file. I think a bzr plugin could help with this by warning the user if there is some team branch of the package. Incidentally, team branches are something I find quite confusing and makes me less likely to contribute to them. Finally, I find it somewhat hard to believe that what amounts to a 3 character change requires this much work from so many people. Also in my mind this patch was simple enough that I thought it was worth fixing in Natty straight away rather than proposing a merge for the upstream code and waiting for them to create a new package. (Not so much because the bug was important but because I think it is beneficial for the patch author to see something done with their contribution right away. Having "your name in lights" is great way to recognize them.) -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
