{debupstream} no longer looks at non-base branches for debian/changelog

Bug #801618 reported by Jelmer Vernooij
22
This bug affects 5 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
bzr-builder
Fix Released
Critical
Jelmer Vernooij

Bug Description

With the recent changes to support {debupstream} per branch, {debupstream} now only looks at the base branch. This means that existing recipes will break if they rely on {debupstream} from a changelog file in a branch that is not the base branch.

This should at least be fixed for users of the older recipe formats. What should we do with the 0.4 format, should we require users to explicitly use {debupstream:branch} if they want the version to come from a non-base branch?

Related branches

Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
Changed in bzr-builder:
status: New → Triaged
status: Triaged → In Progress
importance: Undecided → Critical
assignee: nobody → Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
summary: - {debupstream} no longer looks at other branches for debian/changelog
+ {debupstream} no longer looks at non-base branches for debian/changelog
Revision history for this message
James Westby (james-w) wrote : Re: [Bug 801618] [NEW] {debupstream} no longer looks at non-base branches for debian/changelog

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:32:34 -0000, Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> wrote:
> What should we do with the 0.4 format, should we require users to
> explicitly use {debupstream:branch} if they want the version to come
> from a non-base branch?

I'm not sure. I don't think that the existing behaviour is bad.

It does mean that the user can't take from the base branch though, as it
has no name that can be used.

I think for consistency we just have the behaviour currently in trunk
(take from the base branch.)

That seems less than ideal though, as generally there will be only one
tree that has the changelog, so the currentl behaviour is easiest for
people to use.

Thanks,

James

Revision history for this message
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer) wrote :

On 24/06/11 22:12, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:32:34 -0000, Jelmer Vernooij<email address hidden> wrote:
>> What should we do with the 0.4 format, should we require users to
>> explicitly use {debupstream:branch} if they want the version to come
>> from a non-base branch?
> I'm not sure. I don't think that the existing behaviour is bad.
>
> It does mean that the user can't take from the base branch though, as it
> has no name that can be used.
>
> I think for consistency we just have the behaviour currently in trunk
> (take from the base branch.)
>
> That seems less than ideal though, as generally there will be only one
> tree that has the changelog, so the currentl behaviour is easiest for
> people to use.
>
Perhaps we can keep the current behaviour, but IFF we don't find a
debian/changelog in the root branch, fall back to the old behaviour?

That seems less clean and predictable though.

Cheers,

jelmer

Revision history for this message
James Westby (james-w) wrote :

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:55:30 -0000, Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> wrote:
> Perhaps we can keep the current behaviour, but IFF we don't find a
> debian/changelog in the root branch, fall back to the old behaviour?
>
> That seems less clean and predictable though.

Yeah, I think it would do the right thing most of the time, but it would
be rather unexpected I think.

I think I'm leaning towards a special variable for the final tree, like
{debupstream:<tree>} or similar. I don't think it's really needed
if we're not going to have the simple {debupstream} look at the tree.

Thanks,

James

Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
Changed in bzr-builder:
milestone: none → 0.7.1
status: In Progress → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.