ArchiveReorganisation and sponsoring

James Westby jw+debian at
Mon Sep 1 08:53:27 BST 2008

On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 13:04 +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>     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.

I am proceeding as if ArchiveReorganisation is probable, but not
definite, and I don't think anything that has been done so far,
or will be done in the near future is reliant on ArchiveReorganisation

>     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, and 5m24.582s to `bzr branch
>`.  At
> 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.

Yes, you are using a different command, Matt was referring to
"bzr checkout --lightweight", which get's you just the latest
version of the source, just as "apt-get source" does. This would
presumably be what a sponsor would want to sponsor something
easy on a package that they hadn't touched before.

The history is there if you want it, either by grabbing the whole
branch as you did, fetching on demand using the lightweight
checkout, or reconfiguring the checkout to a branch once you
realise that you would benefit from a copy of the history locally.

>     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).

I agree, and I am worried that the thread has rather been hijacked.
I obviously enjoy discussing these issues, but I'd also like to find
a solution to your original problem.



More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list