Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #8097

Re: The transition to BND 2.x

Show key headers only | View raw

Le 16/06/2015 20:37, Markus Koschany a écrit :

> Thanks for the upload. However I feel that this is another "double work"
> situation again. (you probably remember the javahelper case). In my
> opinion we should have continued to work on bnd1. I am always open for
> improvement suggestions and of course I would have fixed all remaining
> issues myself.

Well, I was concerned about the missing history, but as you said it
wasn't absolutely necessary. I didn't want to bother you with this
aspect and made the changes myself. I used your package as a guide
though, so that wasn't really a double work.


I have put some thought in bnd1, for example my package
> was co-installable whereas bnd-1.50 breaks/replaces bnd <= 2 now. I
> don't expect any fatal problems with this decision but this was also
> true for bnd1.

I don't mind changing this once the package is in unstable. Note that
bnd1 wasn't co-installable either, the Maven artifacts in
/usr/share/maven-repo and the versioned jars in /usr/share/java were
conflicting. piuparts would have bitten us quickly with a RC bug against
both packages.


I also think that we don't really need the packaging
> history because it is clear to everyone that the bnd repository contains
> all historical information. I would treat bnd1/bnd1.50 simply as a new
> package with a clean Git history whose sole goal is to simplify the
> transition to bnd2 and then we should get rid of it as soon as possible.
> There is no need for fancy Git magic.

I'm just prudent, sometimes temporary things last much longer than
expected. If the 1.50 package was to remain in Stretch I'd feel better
if it had a full and self contained history.


> The issue with bnd's upstream branch was that someone forgot to push the
> old 1.50 upstream sources when bnd 1.50 was released. Miguel was the
> first one who created an initial upstream branch for bnd and pushed the
> 2.1.0 sources. I don't perceive the current situation as an issue
> because Git master reflects the current state of affairs in unstable and
> you still can work with bnd 2.1.0 on the experimental branch. So I am
> confident everything will be resolved when we eventually upload 2.1.0-2
> to unstable and re-import everything with gbp import-dsc on Git master.

The messy history on the master branch is bothering though :/ I'm not
blaming anyone, I understand well it was the result of a benign gbp
misuse. Git makes this easily fixable and I'm willing to do the work
necessary to restore a chronological history. But before proceeding I'd
like to ensure Miguel and you do not have pending changes, since the
rebasing would prevent you from pushing them.

Emmanuel Bourg


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5580962B.1010300@apache.org

Back to linux.debian.maint.java | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The transition to BND 2.x Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> - 2015-06-06 14:50 +0200
  Re: The transition to BND 2.x Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2015-06-11 13:00 +0200
    Re: The transition to BND 2.x Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> - 2015-06-16 20:40 +0200
      Re: The transition to BND 2.x Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2015-06-16 23:40 +0200
        Re: The transition to BND 2.x Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> - 2015-06-17 01:20 +0200

csiph-web