ArchiveReorganisation and sponsoring
persia at ubuntu.com
Mon Sep 1 05:04:07 BST 2008
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 01:41:53AM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>> There is also currently a bug about awkward workflows for
>> sponsoring in Launchpad (3), and it may be that as mentioned there,
>> the proposed solution is to encourage revision modifications using the
>> branch merge request review workflow, towards eventual implementation
>> of NoMoreSourcePackages (4).
> This is where I think we should be headed. I realize there are some issues
> with it at present, but as we start to use Bazaar more, we'll be in a better
> position to put more effort into resolving them.
While this seems sensible, I'm not tempted to tie
ArchiveReorganisation to NoMoreSourcePackages, as I think they solve
sufficiently different problems that it is desireable to introduce
each at a time appropriate for that goal, rather than having one be a
dependency of the other. If/When both are introduced in the primary
archives, this would make much more sense.
> With update-manager, on a fast connection, a lightweight checkout takes
> about 10 seconds vs. apt-get source at about 4 seconds. That's not bad at
> all, and Bazaar hints that it might be even faster once the branch format is
> upgraded to the latest.
Perhaps I'm using different commands. I've a sufficient excess of
bandwidth on my local link that I have not yet been able to saturate
it, and les than 5 millisecond latencies to a number of well-known
international trunks. It takes me 0m9.187s seconds to `apt-get source
update-manager` from archive.ubuntu.com, and 5m24.582s to `bzr branch
least for me, this is the difference between being able to continue a
linear thought process and needing to find something else to do to
fill the time waiting for the branching to complete.
I know there are High priority bugs against bzr to address some of
these issues, but again, I don't see significant value in tying
ArchiveReorganisation to improvements in bzr to support sponsoring, as
it may be that the schedules for the different development teams do
not align (nor should they necessarily).
More information about the ubuntu-devel