Merge lp:~barry/ubuntu-packaging-guide/udd-update into lp:ubuntu-packaging-guide

[Barry Warsaw]

- Fixes lots of typos and formatting issues.
- Updates merge commands now that `bzr merge` can be used instead of `bzr
  merge-package` (as of Precise)
- Get rid of all the discussion of using looms to develop patches. It doesn't
  seem to work right anymore and it's complicated and confusing.

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

Thanks so much, this is great to bring it up to date and improve the docs.

I've read through it. It's easy to miss things with just a
line-by-line diff, but I think there's just a few tweaks.

> + $ bzr merge debianlp:squeeze/tomboy

missing a space there

It may be worth mentioning people need bzr and its plugins from either
Oneiric (Precise?), or from the bzr ppa, to get all the features you
describe.

+ $ bzr merge debianlp:squeeze/tomboy

How does 'debianlp:' differ from 'debian:'? Maybe you could explain?

-.. This section seems a bit too casual, and assumes to much prior
knowledge (re: use of "of course").
-
-You could of course just use `dh_make(8)` to get things going, or you could
-use `bzr dh-make`. The latter might provide some benefits, and can be run
-like so from inside your branch::
+You could use the `dh_make` command to get things going, or similiarly the
+`bzr dh-make`. The latter might provide some benefits, and can be run like so
+from inside your branch::

should be double-backticks.

+ The
+``bzr tag`` command will do this for you automatically::

    $ bzr tag

That is good to mention but perhaps for clarity you should say it does
this when you give it no argument.

Thanks, Martin

[Barry Warsaw (barry)]

On Feb 01, 2012, at 03:07 AM, Martin Pool wrote:

>Thanks so much, this is great to bring it up to date and improve the docs.
>
>I've read through it. It's easy to miss things with just a
>line-by-line diff, but I think there's just a few tweaks.
>
>> + $ bzr merge debianlp:squeeze/tomboy
>
>missing a space there

Sorry, I don't see the missing space. I tested the command as written above.

>It may be worth mentioning people need bzr and its plugins from either
>Oneiric (Precise?), or from the bzr ppa, to get all the features you
>describe.

Good point. I've added a footnote taking the version numbers from Jelmer's
email to the UDD mailing list.

>+ $ bzr merge debianlp:squeeze/tomboy
>
>How does 'debianlp:' differ from 'debian:'? Maybe you could explain?

I think there actually is no debian: prefix. IIRC, debianlp: was chosen to
make it clear that it's grabbing the branch from Debian imported into
Launchpad. It was felt that debian: alone would imply grabbing the branch
from the Debian VCS.

>-.. This section seems a bit too casual, and assumes to much prior
>knowledge (re: use of "of course").
>-
>-You could of course just use `dh_make(8)` to get things going, or you could
>-use `bzr dh-make`. The latter might provide some benefits, and can be run
>-like so from inside your branch::
>+You could use the `dh_make` command to get things going, or similiarly the
>+`bzr dh-make`. The latter might provide some benefits, and can be run like so
>+from inside your branch::
>
>should be double-backticks.

Fixed, thanks (along with the typo :).

>+ The
>+``bzr tag`` command will do this for you automatically::
>
> $ bzr tag
>
>That is good to mention but perhaps for clarity you should say it does
>this when you give it no argument.

Fixed, thanks.

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

> Thanks so much, this is great to bring it up to date and improve the docs.
Yes, indeed!

> + $ bzr merge debianlp:squeeze/tomboy
>
> How does 'debianlp:' differ from 'debian:'? Maybe you could explain?
debian: doesn't exist. debianlp: refers to the Launchpad import of the Debian branches, but isn't named "debian:" because it's doesn't alias to the canonical Debian branches (which are defined by the Vcs-*: headers in the Debian source packages, and usually hosted on alioth.debian.org.

[lp:~barry/ubuntu-packaging-guide/udd-update]

72. By Barry Warsaw on 2012-02-01

Update after poolie's review.

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

Thanks again for updating this.

I think removing the references to looms is a good idea, at least until we have better integration with looms.

"bzr dep3-patch" can often be a good alternative to "bzr diff -p ..." because it will also generate the relevant DEP3 headers (including whether or not the changes are upstream, the authors, etc). It doesn't work with uncommitted changes in the current tree yet, perhaps we should add that.

review: Approve

[Barry Warsaw (barry)]

On Feb 01, 2012, at 03:35 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:

>"bzr dep3-patch" can often be a good alternative to "bzr diff -p ..." because
>it will also generate the relevant DEP3 headers (including whether or not the
>changes are upstream, the authors, etc). It doesn't work with uncommitted
>changes in the current tree yet, perhaps we should add that.

Thanks, I didn't know about that command. Do you think it would make things
clearer to mention it? Or, would it be possible to tweak the diff prefix
default when in a source branch?

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:39:57AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 01, 2012, at 03:35 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >"bzr dep3-patch" can often be a good alternative to "bzr diff -p ..." because
> >it will also generate the relevant DEP3 headers (including whether or not the
> >changes are upstream, the authors, etc). It doesn't work with uncommitted
> >changes in the current tree yet, perhaps we should add that.
> Thanks, I didn't know about that command. Do you think it would make things
> clearer to mention it? Or, would it be possible to tweak the diff prefix
> default when in a source branch?
For the moment, I think just "bzr diff -p" is more sensible. Once
dep3-patch works well enough we could mention that, or integrate it
into "bzr diff" (e.g. "bzr diff --format=dep3").

We could automatically enable -p in source package branches, but it
might be confusing for users if that default changed from branch to
branch, and it's unclear why the default is different. What do you think ?

Cheers,

Jelmer

[Barry Warsaw (barry)]

On Feb 01, 2012, at 03:46 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:

>For the moment, I think just "bzr diff -p" is more sensible. Once
>dep3-patch works well enough we could mention that, or integrate it
>into "bzr diff" (e.g. "bzr diff --format=dep3").
>
>We could automatically enable -p in source package branches, but it
>might be confusing for users if that default changed from branch to
>branch, and it's unclear why the default is different. What do you think ?

I like the idea of `bzr diff --format=dep3` so I think I'd just favor that
when it's ready. Hard to say whether the change in default would be helpful
or confusing. Maybe once --format=dep3 works well enough we can poll the udd
folks to see what they think.

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:31:46PM -0000, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 01, 2012, at 03:07 AM, Martin Pool wrote:
> >+ $ bzr merge debianlp:squeeze/tomboy
> >
> >How does 'debianlp:' differ from 'debian:'? Maybe you could explain?
>
> I think there actually is no debian: prefix. IIRC, debianlp: was chosen to
> make it clear that it's grabbing the branch from Debian imported into
> Launchpad. It was felt that debian: alone would imply grabbing the branch
> from the Debian VCS.
Yeah.

We have both debianlp: and apt:. Both might be relevant, depending on
what you're trying to do.

When merging from Debian inside of a UDD package, you probably want
debianlp: since that has shared history with ubuntu:. When
contributing back to an upstream Debian package (like
http://bzr.debian.org/bzr/pkg-bazaar/bzr/unstable, for bzr itself) you
probably want apt:bzr or something like that, which looks at the
Vcs-Bzr header in the package.

It would be nice if we could make the importer base its import
branches on the official Debian branches; that way this distinction
would become less important (and contributing back and forth to Debian
would become easier).

Cheers,

Jelmer

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:52:17PM -0000, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 01, 2012, at 03:46 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>
> >For the moment, I think just "bzr diff -p" is more sensible. Once
> >dep3-patch works well enough we could mention that, or integrate it
> >into "bzr diff" (e.g. "bzr diff --format=dep3").
> >
> >We could automatically enable -p in source package branches, but it
> >might be confusing for users if that default changed from branch to
> >branch, and it's unclear why the default is different. What do you think ?
>
> I like the idea of `bzr diff --format=dep3` so I think I'd just favor that
> when it's ready. Hard to say whether the change in default would be helpful
> or confusing. Maybe once --format=dep3 works well enough we can poll the udd
> folks to see what they think.
I've filed bug 924935 about this.

Cheers,

Jelmer

[Barry Warsaw (barry)]

On Feb 01, 2012, at 03:55 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:

>It would be nice if we could make the importer base its import
>branches on the official Debian branches; that way this distinction
>would become less important (and contributing back and forth to Debian
>would become easier).

+1