ArchiveReorganisation and sponsoring

[James Westby]

On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 02:56 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> James Westby could say more, but I think for the moment the plan is that
> if you tag a revision as corresponding to an upload in some conventional
> way then it'll believe you. Perhaps it would be valuable to have the
> actual source package imported on some other branch in case it doesn't
> match; this is analogous to the old problem that upstream revision
> control does not necessarily exactly match the .orig.tar.gz.

This is something that can easily be tweaked. It will check the
contents of the versions, as well as the version numbers, to avoid
the race condition when someone pushes and someone else uploads.

I think the last time we talked about this we decided that handling
it the same as if the person that pushed hadn't tagged to indicate
an upload was a good idea. This would mean that their changes were
overwritten with what is in the archive, the tag would be moved, and
then they would be informed. A proposal I liked for informing them was
filing a bug on the package, and subscribing them (and me so I
can keep an eye on things). The bug would give the exact
commands to resurrect their changes in to the branch, and if
their changes are not needed they can simply close the bug.

One of the main aims of the current work is to have the branches
reflect what is in the archive with only a small latency, so that
anyone can have confidence in the branches, and not feel the need
to "apt-get source" to check that they have the latest code.

Thanks,

James