ArchiveReorganisation and sponsoring
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Mon Sep 1 14:09:04 BST 2008
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:02:49 +0100 James Westby <jw+debian at jameswestby.net>
>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.
That sounds good. For this approach to be successful, I think that is an
essential attribute. Any idea yet how small the value of small will be in
More information about the ubuntu-devel