your thoughts wanted on bzr team UDD focus
Max Bowsher
maxb at f2s.com
Fri Dec 4 21:24:31 GMT 2009
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
More information about the ubuntu-distributed-devel
mailing list