Support the news mangling we do when merging up across series in newsmerge

[Robert Collins]

When we merge across series - e.g. from 2.0 to 2.1, we duplicate the NEWS entries for the lower series into the newer series - because NEWS as a single document is actually showing a DAG-like thing. However newsmerge doesn't automate this; would be rad if it did.

[John A Meinel (jameinel)]

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

Robert Collins wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> When we merge across series - e.g. from 2.0 to 2.1, we duplicate the
> NEWS entries for the lower series into the newer series - because NEWS
> as a single document is actually showing a DAG-like thing. However
> newsmerge doesn't automate this; would be rad if it did.
>
> ** Affects: bzr
> Importance: Wishlist
> Status: Confirmed
>
>
> ** Tags: newsmerge
>

We talked about doing that, but for the 2.0 and 2.1 series, I always
de-duped them because 2.1.Y came out at the same time as 2.0.X...

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkv2cGUACgkQJdeBCYSNAAOglgCeJ0X8sCR/H5jawP622J4uDsac
MvgAniRKLGFMSjisebFSWN2uL1aDIYFT
=LEM5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

Well, I guess I got confused; certainly I'd like, when reading 2.1.2
to see clearly what changed in 2.1.2 and no have something skipped
just because 2.0.7 has it as well.

[Vincent Ladeuil (vila)]

>>>>> Robert Collins <email address hidden> writes:

    > Well, I guess I got confused; certainly I'd like, when reading 2.1.2
    > to see clearly what changed in 2.1.2 and no have something skipped
    > just because 2.0.7 has it as well.

The 2.1.2 header should mention that it includes all fixes done for
2.0.7, that's what we've done so far.

[Andrew Bennetts (spiv)]

Robert Collins wrote:
> Well, I guess I got confused; certainly I'd like, when reading 2.1.2
> to see clearly what changed in 2.1.2 and no have something skipped
> just because 2.0.7 has it as well.

FWIW, this has surprised me too (my understanding was the same as
Robert's). Probably worth posting to the mailing list about it and/or
posting a patch to the developer docs to make sure everyone is on the
same page.

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

So, I'm not sure it is different - Vincent, me and Andrew all thought
we were duplicating, and all my merges up the series are duplicated
like that. :)

[Vincent Ladeuil (vila)]

>>>>> Robert Collins <email address hidden> writes:

    > So, I'm not sure it is different - Vincent, me and Andrew all thought
    > we were duplicating, and all my merges up the series are duplicated
    > like that. :)

No ! I think we have a *reference* that you need to follow to get the
changes for the 2.0.x release in the 2.1.x *summary*.

As such a NEWS entry exists only once.

This causes friction when we backport and don't land in the oldest
branch first.

So I'd be happy for the entries to be duplicated when they land first in
dev, then in 2.2 then in 2.1, etc ; because backporting generally
requires some tweaks anyway (up to rewritting some part to use earlier APIs).

I'd be ok to leave them defined only once if they land in 2.0.x and are
then merged in 2.1, 2.2, dev ; because the cascading merged generally
requires a few or no tweaks at all.

+1 on discussing it on the list to ensure everybody is on the same page.