[Debian-olpc-devel] How _should_ we import new changes into git?

[Morgan Collett]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 00:45, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 05:04:53PM -0500, Luke Faraone wrote:
>>On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> Software known not to be release
>>> quality should instead be packaged for "experimental" branch.
>>>
>>> ...which means we (at the source level at least) would need to
>>> support multiple branches, which I do not feel ready to do yet.
>>
>>
>>Couldn't we simply clone the current "stable" tree and import later
>>releases into that, no extra software changes needed?
>
> Current source handling is already too complex: Noone except me is
> packaging!
>
> Please prove me wrong by packaging some activities. ;-)
>
>
>>> I still feel that we should not currently package unstable upstream
>>> releases.  Feel free to keep throwing arguments for the opposite at
>>> me
>>>
>>
>>Ubuntu and Debian are the two most popular (GNU/)Linux distributions*.
>>Many people who want to contribute to Sugar will be using them, and
>>some testers will not have the technical knowledge to compile the
>>latest releases from source and set it up for their platform. Also, by
>>importing new versions early into experimental, we're able to get good
>>feedback about whether any changes in the new versions will change the
>>way we have to package them.
>
> If I did not make that clear already: I really do want to maintain
> multiple concurrent branches, both stable and unstable.
>
> What I do not want is to complicate our maintainance structures even
> further. Instead of _only_ doing additional branches (which complicates
> things that are already not clear) I want to switch to topgit, which
> effectively _both_ simplifies _and_ deals with multiple branches in same
> go.
>
> And I am working on it.
>
>
> I believe it is more important to have a full core set of Sugar packages
> that actually works (even if not the very newest), than multiple
> half-baked sets of packages that does not work fully.
>
> Certainly it is best to have multiple fully working full sets of Sugar
> packages. But we are not there yet!

Hi Jonas,

I understand what you are saying. Since we have different needs in the
short term, we need to diverge for a while, as we need to get Sugar
0.83.x current in Ubuntu jaunty, so that we can release in April with
0.84. Once the Ubuntu feature freeze hits, we can only get bugfix
uploads in, which would be the final 0.83.x releases and the 0.84.x
release(s).

So what the Ubuntu team will do is package 0.83.x based on your
packaging, and as soon as you are able to handle multiple branches,
we'll send you the patches.