Improving merge-upstream

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:30 -0400, James Westby wrote:
> After talking with a few people about it over the last few weeks, and
> seeing some difficulties that people face with merge-upstream, I'd like
> to start a discussion of what could be done to improve it.
> 
> I have some ideas, but please present any others you have.
> 
> 1) The obvious one, watch file intergration.
> 
> We don't have to make you give the URL of the tarball if you have a
> watch file. This has been the intent from the first day I wrote
> merge-upstream, and the reason why "--version" is a mandatory option
> right now, I just haven't got around to it.
> 
> I'd be more than happy to help someone implement this. The uscan part
> isn't too hard, you just have to run it with a certain combination of
> options and parse the resulting xml-like. The only difficulty is
> threading it in to the maze of code to deal with all the optional
> arguments. I'd love to clean that up and get this feature in.
+1 This'd be a great feature indeed. It would be nice to implement this
by using the UpstreamSource API (perhaps by extending it with some
optional methods). 

> 2) Another obvious one, fixing bugs.
> 
> I've just found another "incosistent delta" bug, and there are probably
> more. Getting them fixed would make it more reliable.
> 
> There may be other classes of bug to fix too.
I haven't seen any of these in a while. Maybe I'm just lucky :-)

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-distributed-devel/attachments/20100928/13e5dc86/attachment.pgp