ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rodney,

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 04:45:49PM -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 21:15 +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > These are one line additions to debian/control.

> They are rebuilds. Maybe for all the packages that isn't an issue, but
> for C++, it means that anything that provides a template the code uses,
> and which has changed since the last build, has the potential to break
> the behavior of the code using that template, as they are processed at
> compile time, and not at runtime when the shlib is loaded.

> Not trying to be annoying, but having two conflicting ways of getting
> things done now, very much is annoying.

And rest assured, the frustration goes both ways ;-)

Ubuntu developers are responsible for the packaging across the entire
archive, which includes responsibility for integration issues like this.  We
obviously don't want Ubuntu devs to accidentally assume that packaging-only
changes are "safe" and lose the protection of the CI infrastructure; but on
the other hand the CI process is currently very cumbersome for Ubuntu devs
making packaging fixes, considering they should have the authority to make
these changes directly without the overhead of merge proposals and reviews
by upstream devs who /don't/ have the authority to make those same packaging
changes.

This leaves Ubuntu devs with an unpleasant choice: do they slow down their
work in order to push all changes through the regular CI process,
eliminating the risk of regression from a no-change rebuild?  Or do they get
the changes done in the archive efficiently, so that they don't have to
spend half a day (or more) handholding the change through the system?

We don't want Ubuntu devs to have to make this choice at all, which is why
Ubuntu Engineering is working hard to improve this state of affairs with the
CI Airline and autopilot/autopkgtest integration.  In the near future, we
can count on direct uploads of packages to the archive being subjected to
the same automated CI tests that are applied when the packages are uploaded
via landing silos, a win-win.

I think in that case, we do want changes from the archive to be landed
directly to the upstream branches in question, which I believe is already at
least somewhat automated.  Could you expand on your concern regarding "wrong
versions"?  If this isn't currently working the way it should, let's figure
that out and get it fixed.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@xxxxxxxxxx                                     vorlon@xxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature