bzr loves Ubuntu @ UDS

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:26 -0600, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> 
> I'm not suggesting getting *all* of the imports working before doing
> anything else. But getting the import for a particular project for
> which
> you're going to do daily builds working properly before doing
> something
> else with it seems like a better idea than fixing the branch up later.

Right now we have no daily build infrastructure.

On a case by case basis I don't disagree with you, but neither do I
massively agree with you:
 - we have 16K+ packages to address eventually
 - 1-2K in 'main'
 - perhaps 100 key ones that really need this badly

I think we should join the dots end to end on a few packages as soon as
possible and then iterate sideways adding features to the daily builds
and more imports to the mix.

But we have enough imports already to permit focusing on the daily build
aspects (a couple of K imports, 0 daily builds from trunk using lp
infrastructure).

Remember that the #1 priority is 'daily builds from trunk'.
That /clear/y implies an import of those trunks we're trying to build.

If you say "#1 priority is imports of trunk", you get a totally
different emergent effect. And thats what we are avoiding!

Lastly, as we have to have good handling of history rewrites, I really
don't care at the per-branch level whether we incur a rewrite or not: we
have (already) 160K branches that eventually need rewrites. 1 here or
there is noise. I don't think other folk should care as well; its a
bridge we need to cross as part of this overall task.

> I don't think the failure rates are as bad as 25%-50%. For bzr-git the
> only real issue I'm aware of at this point are submodules (this is
> e.g.
> problematic for kvm/qemu); for bzr-svn the two main issues seem to be
> libsvn http bugs and odd history involving bzr-svn roundtripping. I
> don't know what the failure rates are like for cscvs? 

Fortunately, I was quoting an adhoc report we got done, rather than
guessing.

IIRC cscvs has the lowest failure rate, cscvs/svn the second and git the
worst at the moment. (OTOH there are less git samples so bias may be
present).

when bzr-svn is rolled out I'd expect the bzr-svn failure rate to go way
down.

Also some of the failures may still be bad / moved URLS. Its a tricky
figure to qualify at the moment.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-distributed-devel/attachments/20091119/a309a16a/attachment.pgp