On Jan 09, 2014, at 08:34 AM, Didier Roche wrote:
So, the idea that we enforced from this process are quite simple:
source package name == project name. So, if you have "foo" source package in
Ubuntu where we are upstream for, you know that you can confidently bzr
branch lp:foo and that's what is in the latest development version of ubuntu.
inline packaging: You know and are sure that the packaging is . We also
sanitize and try to standardize the packaging to have the effect of no
surprise. You know the package is going to use dh9, debian/rules will be
structured that way, we are use --fail-missing to avoid new files not being
shipped without noticing…
I think this is fine policy, as long as it's documented and easily
discoverable. But also note that this won't eliminate *some* confusion about
branch locations because you're also going to have the imported source
branches too, e.g. ubuntu:foo (a.k.a. lp:ubuntu/trusty/foo).
Modulo importer delays and failures, lp:foo and ubuntu:foo *should* be
identical content-wise, even though they won't have a common ancestor and
won't support merges between them.
