No bazaar 2.1.0b1 release in beta paa

Martin Pool mbp at canonical.com
Thu Nov 26 05:25:28 GMT 2009


2009/11/26 Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at canonical.com>:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>
>> I think the ideal would be that packages are uploaded as soon as
>> possibly after the release, but that there's also a ppa that holds a
>> consistent set.  Possibly we could have a bot that waits for a staging
>> ppa to get to a consistent state, and then copies everything into the
>> ppa people are actually meant to use?
>
> I can't comment on the details but that sounds the right approach
> conceptually.
>
> IMO, users have a strong expectation that using one of our PPAs will
> give them a *consistent* set of plugins. If they simply wanted the
> latest stuff without the consistency debian packaging provides, they'd
> use 'bzr multi-pull' across their plugins directory each morning.

I had a chat to Robert about this.  He points out that this (as
opposed to keeping old versions) would be more consistent with how
Debian works, with things getting automatically promoted from unstable
to testing.

Robert also suggests perhaps having sub-PPAs for each series (2.0,
2.1, etc) so that people can pick one of them.  This would kind of be
a workaround for access to old versions: you wouldn't be able to get
absolutely any old version, but you would be able to at least swap
from the latest stable 2.0 to the latest stable 2.1.

My script was going to run smoke tests (in chroots etc) across all
ppas.  That might be useful, but for determining consistency it's
probably better to assume the packaging information is correct: in
other words, if the packages are marked compatible, assume they are.

So we would ask packagers to upload everything as soon as it comes out
into say ~bzr/bzr-2.0-staging; when that reaches a consistent state
then the bot will replicate it into ~bzr/bzr-2.0.

We probably want another set of archives for final or point releases
vs release candidates.  Or does it really matter?  The rcs are
generally so close to the final release, and getting the wider testing
is probably worthwhile...

The source and packaging level divergence between ubuntu releases is
generally pretty small, so the bot could also propagate packages
across distroreleases if they're source compatible.  I'd almost say
that the first-class supported distroreleases are those that are
source-compatible with the current distrorelease: at the moment I
think that takes us back to at least Hardy, though of course it may
change in the future.

Separately from this, a bot that archives every package ever built for
later reference could be good.  Disk is pretty cheap.  But we probably
don't want to directly point people into this.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>



More information about the bazaar mailing list