svn team mailing list archive

[Max Bowsher <maxb@xxxxxxx>]

On 01/07/10 12:56, Michael Diers wrote:
>>> Right. I suppose the reason I changed the lucid branch at all is that
>>> the previous debian/changelog (that's revno: 46, 1.6.9dfsg-1ubuntu0svn2)
>>> looked no good to me.
>>
>> What looked no good about it?
> 
> Well, Launchpad presents a "(changes file)" link for the available
> packages, which resolves to the contents of the upload's source changes.
> 
> https://launchpad.net/~svn/+archive/ppa/+packages
> 
> If the debian/changelog for the package is differential w.r.t. to the
> previous PPA release, that turns out to be fairly useless for our users,
> IMHO. This is because said previous PPA release is not readily
> accessible via the Launchpad UI. (Users would have to "View all builds"
> and then find their way to the respective changes files.)
> 
> https://launchpad.net/~svn/+archive/ppa/+files/subversion_1.6.9dfsg-1ubuntu0svn3_source.changes
> 
> https://launchpad.net/~svn/+archive/ppa/+files/subversion_1.6.9dfsg-1ubuntu0svn2_source.changes
> 
> Thus I maintain that the ppa3 changelog is "good", and the ppa2 one is
> "no good", relatively speaking.

Except the svn3 changelog now claims a whole lot of change vs. the svn2
version which didn't actually happen, and is thus "no good" by my
definition. At this point, the majority of users using the PPA can be
expected to have updated to svn2, and so re-describing the changes in
svn1 in an otherwise no-change upload called svn3 makes no sense to me.

I really really think we should keep the changelog entry for any given
upload describing what actually changed - not fudging it to manipulate
the contents of the changelog panel in the Launchpad UI.

>>>>> Perhaps you could leave the
>>>>> merges to karmic, jaunty and hardy to me?
>>>>
>>>> Any particular reason? I think the PPA should maintain consistency
>>>> across all distroseries it serves, whereever possible, and it's not
>>>> really that much more work to do 4 distroseries rather than just one.
>>>
>>> I meant to add kwallet support to the 1.6.9 releases in karmic, jaunty
>>> and hardy before upgrading the branches to 1.6.12. That would entail
>>> submitting another round of builds for 1.6.9 on Launchpad.
>>
>> Oh, did you specifically want a version of *1.6.9* with kwallet, that
>> you could copy elsewhere before replacing it with 1.6.12 in the PPA,
>> rather than jumping directly to 1.6.12+kwallet in one build?
>>
>> Otherwise, we might as well go straight to 1.6.12.
> 
> Yes, I'd like to do a 1.6.9+kwallet build for karmic, jaunty and hardy.
> I've prepared everything already, my local pbuilder binaries and sources
> are OK, it's just a matter of submitting them to Launchpad.
> 
> (I have users updating from our PPA, and I'd like to provide them with a
> KWallet-enabled 1.6.9 build without introducing any other changes. It's
> sort of a maintenance release for the 1.6.9 series.)

OK, I'll wait for those to arrive. Do you intend to upload soon?

>>> Right now,
>>> 1.6.9dfsg-1ubuntu0svn2 has support for KWallet in lucid only. That's not
>>> very consistent, either.
>>
>> Well, it's consistent with the intentions of matching the dependencies
>> in use in the upstream Ubuntu version for the series that I previously
>> had :-)
>>
>>> I don't object to you reverting my changes or doing the merge for all
>>> four series, though. I would, however, prefer to have KWallet support in
>>> all our branches.
>>
>> I'll hold off uploading anything until you've had a chance to answer my
>> question above regarding whether you wanted an intermediate
>> 1.6.9+kwallet build.
> 
> Thanks, I'll proceed with the 1.6.9+kwallet builds then, shall I?

Yes please.


Max.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature