continuous packaging? anyone?

[Harald Sitter]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> wrote:
>
> Is this for stable branches or master?

Ideally both. The primary concern I have with this however is that bzr
is really hard to manage with >1 branches in particular when we have
lots of them and they need vigorous merging, so all of this might want
to be happening in git repos really.

The other option would be to track the development of whatever big
thing is going to land next. e.g. track master then Plasma/5.1 when
branched up to 5.1.0 and then switch to master again moving forward
towards 5.2.
That's really not desirable though because for point updates we'd
still have to do a bunch of work to get them packaged, while if we
tracked stable as well it'd be a next-to-no-work release build of the
continuous packaging.

> Is it worth keeping Neon as well as this?

In the long run probably not. The idea behind neon being in /opt has
the only benefit of mixing production software in a neon workspace and
not affecting the stable installation. While this is rather nice it
probably wouldn't be worth keeping considering you can revert to
production packages using ppa-purge and profile data isolation (i.e.
different .config .cache .local) happens through the environment these
days. So, one could simply have an additional package in the CP PPA
that provides a fake xsession to get the environment set up for
isolation to avoid config breakage on downgrade etc.

HS