← Back to team overview

svn team mailing list archive

Re: Preparing to merge with upcoming Subversion 1.6.12dfsg-1 from Debian testing

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2010-07-01 14:09, Max Bowsher wrote:
> 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.

Max,

I'm fully prepared to go with your judgement here; I just wanted to
explain why I touched the changelog in the first place.

>>>>>> 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?

Yes, I'll hopefully be done this afternoon.

Cheers,

- -- 
Michael Diers, Technical Director

elego Software Solutions GmbH, http://www.elego.de
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, Building 12 - BIG, 13355 Berlin, Germany
fon +49 30 2345 8696, fax +49 30 2345 8695, mobile +49 177 2345 865

Geschäftsführer Olaf Wagner, Sitz Berlin, AG Charlottenburg HRB 77719
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkwsh9IACgkQcEKlWnqVgz1PVgCgtzCkq3bOJIkibU2veDnaLabZ
IR8An0S0u3PdTSvLQ/KLqEX8lMNJh5h7
=bd/j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



References