cannot link packaging branches to the branch they package
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Launchpad itself |
Triaged
|
Low
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
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:<
So then the packaging for The GIMP 2.26 on Ubuntu would live at:
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.
affects: | launchpad → launchpad-code |
summary: |
- Series should have multiple branches associated with them + cannot link packaging branches to the branch they package (o |
summary: |
- cannot link packaging branches to the branch they package (o + cannot link packaging branches to the branch they package |
description: | updated |
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.