Review: Syncing from testing a success?
themuso at ubuntu.com
Fri Apr 9 00:27:47 BST 2010
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:41:48AM EST, Martin Pitt wrote:
> So, in your opinion, did syncing from testing
> (1) help to avoid introducing larger breakage into Ubuntu (for the
> domain you are usually watching)
At least at the start of the cycle when we merged with Debian for low level audio, it was much better to sync/merge from unstable, since we wanted to get as much hardware enablement and bug fixing as possible. Once the lower level ALSA stack version was locked in, we then pulled fixes from upstream, so pulling from testing didn't affect low level stuff.
Pulseaudio was synced from unstable at the start, again for bug fixing/merging packaging changes, and once again late in the cycle, we pulled from upstream directly, so no affect with testing or unstable as the source.
Accessibility wise, most of the updates were from GNOME upstream directly, but it was better to merge with unstable at the beginning, to grab packaging changes from Debian and sync versions as closly as possible. After that, it was all from GNOME upstream.
> (2) meant a smaller or larger amount of review and sync requests
Not really applicable, all the major parts of the audio stack carry Ubuntu changes, and won't be a sync any time soon. Same with accessibility.
> (3) made it easier or harder to merge with Debian and get changes
> integrated back upstream
I didn't feel it was any easier or harder, just had to be aware of where things were coming from.
> (4) made library transitions easier or harder
Wasn't involved with transitions, so not applicable.
> (5) anything else that caused or eased problems that you can think
More information about the ubuntu-devel