cannot link packaging branches to the branch they package

[Ted Gould]

I really like how I can associate a branch to a series in Launchpad. Besides the shorter URL it makes the important branches easier to find for people who want to work on the code. The problem I have is that for a particular series I have two important branches; the development branch and the packaging branch for that development. Both of these relate to the series and should be connected to it.

I think that this should then create a new URL form for the launchpad URLs:

   lp:<project>/<series>/<distribution>

So then the packaging for The GIMP 2.26 on Ubuntu would live at:

   lp:gimp/2.26/ubuntu

This would allow for other distributions to have independent packaging branches as well. One thing that I don't like about this scheme is that it doesn't allow for upstream packaging branches as easily. But, I think that upstream projects maintianing all of their own packaging is the exception rather than the rule.

analysis
========

See the extensive discussion in the bug. The tl;dr is that Ted would like to be able to directly link e.g. the debian sid packaging branch, the redhat packaging branch, and so forth, to his release branch.

[Jonathan Lange (jml)]

Hmm! A very interesting idea.

First up, don't hold your breath waiting for this feature. It's not that complicated to implement in practice: extend the data model, migrate to the new data model, tweak lp: traversal, tweak bzr_identity, but changes like this have historically involved a lot of discussion.

Secondly, I notice you don't mention package branches in this (e.g. lp:~ted/ubuntu/karmic/gimp/2.26). I realize that they aren't quite the same thing as what you're asking for, but I'd be interested to know how you think they should fit in.

Thanks for the thought-provoking bug. I'll talk this over with the rest of the Code team.

[Michael Hudson-Doyle (mwhudson)]

I sort of have the feeling that stronger links between projects and packages is the real answer to this.

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 10:31 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> Secondly, I notice you don't mention package branches in this (e.g.
> lp:~ted/ubuntu/karmic/gimp/2.26). I realize that they aren't quite the
> same thing as what you're asking for, but I'd be interested to know how
> you think they should fit in.

That's mostly because I didn't know that package branches existed when I
wrote this bug :)

I guess I think that the second branch would probably be a packaging
branch in most cases. But, the thing I'd want to ensure is that they're
not DISTRO packaging branches but any packaging branch. For instance,
here's kind how we do things for the indicator-applet project which is
an upstream project done by Canonical where (surprisingly) most of the
developers are on Ubuntu.

We maintain a trunk branch that has the code in it. We then merge that
into a packaging branch that we use to publish to a shared PPA. When we
do a release, we make that on the trunk branch and make a tarball. We
then merge to our packaging branch and make packages for our PPA. Then
the distro team takes our packaging branch and makes it good enough to
go into the distro.

So for us, on a development series, there are the two branches. The
trunk development branch and a packaging branch that is used for our
PPA. But, if we were to target more than one distro, we'd probably need
more than one packaging branch.

[Jonathan Lange (jml)]

You can upload branches to any package in any distribution on Launchpad, whether or not they represent what's actually in the distro. I *think* that addresses your basic use case, but I'm not 100% sure.

As Michael says, there should definitely be stronger links between upstreams and their packages, particularly for upstreams that do their own packaging.

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 00:01 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> You can upload branches to any package in any distribution on Launchpad,
> whether or not they represent what's actually in the distro. I *think*
> that addresses your basic use case, but I'm not 100% sure.

No, the basic use case is to connect them together in a series. So that
I can have "0.2" series with two branches; a development branch and a
packaging branch. In theory, I could want more than one packaging
branch.

[Jonathan Lange (jml)]

There's no room for that in our data model right now, but that doesn't mean we can't make room :)

I've kind of always seen "series" as really just a fancy decorator around a branch. Changing it to have multiple branches would force me to change the way I see it.

Why would you want more than one packaging branch?

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 23:35 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> Why would you want more than one packaging branch?

Well, it turns out there is more than one distribution that you might
want to package for ;)

[Jonathan Lange (jml)]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Ted Gould<email address hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 23:35 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
>> Why would you want more than one packaging branch?
>
> Well, it turns out there is more than one distribution that you might
> want to package for ;)

Of course. I'd forgot about that :)

jml

[Tim Penhey (thumper)]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:50:04 Ted Gould wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 23:35 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> > Why would you want more than one packaging branch?
>
> Well, it turns out there is more than one distribution that you might
> want to package for ;)

Well...

Lets say you have project "fooix". Trunk may well be
  ~eric-the-viking/fooix/trunk

This is linked to the development focus series of fooix so the identity
becomes:

  lp:fooix

Now we could have an ubuntu packaging branch

   ~eric-the-viking/ubuntu/karmic/fooix/packaging

and a debian packaging branch

   ~eric-the-viking/debian/squeeze/fooix/packaging

What we are missing is the ability to show the package branches somewhere on
the project page. Now we probably don't want all of them, but "official" ones
may be of interest.

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 04:03 +0000, Tim Penhey wrote:
> Now we could have an ubuntu packaging branch
>
> ~eric-the-viking/ubuntu/karmic/fooix/packaging
>
> and a debian packaging branch
>
> ~eric-the-viking/debian/squeeze/fooix/packaging

The only problems with these is it needs to be per series. So if I had
an unstable an a stable series both with packaging branches. So it'd
have to be something like:

  ~eric-the-viking/ubuntu/karmic/fooix/stable/packaging
  ~eric-the-viking/debian/squeeze/fooix/stable/packaging

  ~eric-the-viking/ubuntu/karmic/fooix/unstable/packaging
  ~eric-the-viking/debian/squeeze/fooix/unstable/packaging

I guess if it's a series we don't need the username though.

  --Ted

[Tim Penhey (thumper)]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:22:47 Ted Gould wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 04:03 +0000, Tim Penhey wrote:
> > Now we could have an ubuntu packaging branch
> >
> > ~eric-the-viking/ubuntu/karmic/fooix/packaging
> >
> > and a debian packaging branch
> >
> > ~eric-the-viking/debian/squeeze/fooix/packaging
>
> The only problems with these is it needs to be per series. So if I had
> an unstable an a stable series both with packaging branches. So it'd
> have to be something like:
>
> ~eric-the-viking/ubuntu/karmic/fooix/stable/packaging
> ~eric-the-viking/debian/squeeze/fooix/stable/packaging
>
> ~eric-the-viking/ubuntu/karmic/fooix/unstable/packaging
> ~eric-the-viking/debian/squeeze/fooix/unstable/packaging
>
> I guess if it's a series we don't need the username though.

So let me try to rephrase what I think you want:

You have a project with multiple active series, each series has a linked
branch. You want to be able to record which packaging branches are associated
with each series branch.

Is that right?

Tim

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 21:05 +0000, Tim Penhey wrote:
> You have a project with multiple active series, each series has a linked
> branch. You want to be able to record which packaging branches are associated
> with each series branch.
>
> Is that right?

Yes.