Redundant distro branches

[Daniel van Vugt]

I'm kind of saying we should stop using:
    lp:mir/ubuntu
and instead use:
    lp:ubuntu/mir

However that's not quite correct. You should target proposed first, so 
actually we would target:
    lp:ubuntu/wily-proposed/mir

I can only imagine we're using lp:mir/ubuntu for one of two reasons:
    * Historical mistakes and nobody noticed; or
    * The "train" needs a separate branch.

If the latter is the reason then it would be helpful for us to at least 
clarify for our own benefit that:
    lp:mir/ubuntu
actually means:
    lp:mir/proposed-to-the-train


On 24/08/15 16:04, Alan Griffiths wrote:
> On 24/08/15 08:45, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
>> We've been using this as our distro branch for a while, but actually
>> the distro does not use it:
>>     https://code.launchpad.net/~mir-team/mir/ubuntu
>>
>> Why don't we just target future releases to the actual ubuntu
>> (proposed) branch instead?
>>     https://code.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mir
>>
>> Presently I'm guessing most of ~mir-team can't write to those
>> branches, but that's OK... we probably only need to be able to propose
>> to them. No write access required.
>>
>
> I've never been comfortable with the use of branches.
>
> It makes sense for the mir team to manage the development branch
> (lp:mir) and release branches (lp:mir/0.15, lp:mir/0.14 etc.).
>
> The distro branches, however, for vivid, wily and vivid-phablet-overlay
> (which is like a distro as far managing our releases goes) as you say
> are really ought to be owned by the distro.
>
> If for operational reasons we need to provide a distro specific URL the
> most we should be doing is maintaining an alias to a corresponding
> release branch. (But I don't see why this would be needed.)
>
> I think I'm agreeing with you.
>
> Alan
>