Quoting Stéphane Graber ([email protected]): > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 03:33:59PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > >But I think it would be more interesting to get a permanent fix for this > > >bug: > > > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/714622 > > > > > >This accounts for the problem people have mentioned, that core packages are > > >much more likely to have failed imports. The importer badly needs fixed to > > >not throw up its hands when the revision ID of a tag has changed; it should > > >only care about this when the branch contents are wrong. > > > > > >This single bug accounts for just under half of all importer failures, and > > >is a failure scenario that the importer *could*, with sufficient smarts, > > >resolve automatically. > > > > This may be controversial, but (except for trying to fix error conditions), > > I > > think we should disallow all developer pushes to UDD branches and only let > > the > > importer write to them. It's simply too error prone otherwise, and there's > > no > > good reason for it. > > > > One possible reason for developers to push to UDD branches is to share the > > code with other people, or to avoid the lag in importer runs. Of course the > > former can be easily handled by pushing to a personal branch. The latter? > > Oh > > well, I can live with that for error-free branches. ;) > > > > A long time ago I decided never to push UDD branches and always let the > > importer update them. I've never regretted that or encountered problems > > with > > that discipline. > > > > Cheers, > > -Barry > > Hmm, so if we can't planned changes to UDD branches and have to use a > separate user-owned branch for that, then what's the use of the UDD > branch? > > It sounds to me like it'd then be much easier for me to just maintain my > own branch on the side and upload from there, ignoring UDD entirely, > which surely isn't what we want there.
Let's say three of us are working together on the next release of package foo. While ironing out a new feature, we want to stash a low prio bugfix to go into the same release. This happens quite often, and a UDD branch that we can write to is a nice place to stash these. Otherwise, yes, we simply need an out-of-band shared tree. Of course then the importer has to deal with differences. When I first started looking at UDD, it took me awhile to realize that there was no way to feed a tag to the UDD branch to say 'now build source packages and push from that to the archive' :) I would have expected that, plus an error message on dput if there is a conflict in the udd branch. -serge -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
