[Pkg-bazaar-maint] bzr-gtk is a release behind

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 23:13 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi Reinhard,
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 14:22 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> Wouter van Heyst <larstiq at larstiq.dyndns.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > http://pkg-bazaar.alioth.debian.org/0.16/ has bzr-gtk 0.16.0
> >> 
> >> I've imported the bzr-gtk package as described at
> >> http://wiki.tauware.de/misc:vcs-packaging to 
> >> sftp://bzr.debian.org/bzr/pkg-bazaar/bzr-gtk/unstable
> >> 
> >> I also uploaded bzr-gtk to unstable.
> >
> > Any reason for not using the upstream branch here? The upstream branch
> > is neither big, nor does bzr-gtk require any autogenerated files that
> > are not versioned. 
> 
> Thanks for bringing up the discussion. I've outlined 3 possible modes of
> maintaining a package here: http://wiki.tauware.de/misc:vcs-packaging
> 
> Currently, the packages bzr and bzrtools are maintained using mode 1
> (debian/ directory only), bzr-svn and bzr-builddeb in mode 2 (complete
> upstream history), and bzr-gtk in mode 3 (upstream releases
> only). Jelmer now proposes to use mode 2 for bzr-gtk as well.

I'd prefer to use mode 1 for everything. With bzr's current facilities I
think it makes the most sense.

> Having said this, does anybody object to maintain bzr and bzrtools with
> mode 3?

Yup, I do. It will at best conflate two separate lines of development
and make it harder to separate the paint. Nested trees as they mature
will make a 'mode 3' approach more tolerable, though still not nice
IMNSHO.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bazaar-maint/attachments/20070525/fa14c8a7/attachment-0001.pgp