your thoughts wanted on bzr team UDD focus

[Max Bowsher]

James Westby wrote:
> On Thu Dec 03 16:05:18 -0500 2009 John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> The latter.
> 
> Debian and Ubuntu worked independently at that time, so we can't add a
> bzr parent, however, there is a logical relationship there. This discrepancy
> is the cause of the issue.
> 
> The problem is aggravated by the fact that we don't currently have complete
> history for Debian.

The situation is more understandable if the diagram is redrawn thusly:

     debian upstream     .------2.0-----------2.1
                       1.0        \             \
     ubuntu upstream     `---------+-----1.1     \
                          \         \      \      \
     debian                \       2.0-1----+-----2.1-1
                          1.0-1-----`        \
     ubuntu                  `---------------1.1-0ubuntu1


John's question is then:
  So how did Ubuntu find "1.1" such that it isn't an ancestor of "2.1"?
  Are they using different upstreams? Or are these tarball imports such
  that 2.1 secretly should be a descendant of 1.1, but nobody recorded
  that fact?

Thus phrased, the answer is rather clearer.


Max.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-distributed-devel/attachments/20091204/e4c8975c/attachment-0001.pgp