your thoughts wanted on bzr team UDD focus

[John Arbash Meinel]

James Westby wrote:
> On Wed Dec 02 23:01:01 -0500 2009 Robert Collins wrote:
>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/491711 is a bug I've filed
>> about merging specific files better; please provide feedback about
>> whether you think it might work for you.
>
> Thanks, sounds about right. We don't need much information to do this
> particular merge, just THIS and OTHER in the script I posted.
>
> I wonder about performance, for this we could register for any basename
> of "changelog", but other things may want to do some fairly intensive
> checking of whether they can handle the file in question based on its
> contents.
>
>> I've marked it high, because things that make bzr-builddeb etc easier
>> and simpler will help in maintenance of that code and its
>> understandability.
>
> Yes.
>
>> What do you need to be able to drop merge-package?
>
> Something that can merge two strands of development contained in one
> branch. merge-package is there because of this case you can get in to
>
>
>     debian upstream     .----B----------G
>                        A      \          \
>     ubuntu upstream     `------+---C      \
>                          \      \   \      \
>     debian                \      E---+------H
>                            D----`     \
>     ubuntu                  `----------F
>
> (Apologies to anyone using a screenreader)
>
> In words:
>
>   * Debian and Ubuntu ship the same upstream release (A) packaged
>     in the same version (D).
>
>   * Debian updates to a new upstream release (B), packaged as E.
>
>   * Ubuntu leap-frogs Debian to an even newer upstream release (C),
>     packaged as F.
>
>   * Debian then packages the latest upstream release (G) as H.
>
> Ubuntu now wishes to merge H in to F.

So how did Ubuntu find "C" such that it isn't an ancestor of "G"? Are
they using different upstreams? Or are these tarball imports such that G
secretly should be a descendant of C, but nobody recorded that fact?

John
=:->