Hopefully LP won't mess up the formatting of this comment
dx team -------------A-------C \
Ubuntu B
The dx team has their branch at lp:foo, which we wish to package. We take this branch
and create a packaging branch, with revision B, based on revision A.
B only contains files that are in the tarball released from revision A, which is not a complete
snapshot of the tree. We do this because the source package that B represents, is built
on the tarball, and so won't contain those files.
Therefore there are files that are in A, but not in B.
Now we want to builds packages with a recipe that is
Hopefully LP won't mess up the formatting of this comment
dx team ------- ------A- ------C
\
Ubuntu B
The dx team has their branch at lp:foo, which we wish to package. We take this branch
and create a packaging branch, with revision B, based on revision A.
B only contains files that are in the tarball released from revision A, which is not a complete
snapshot of the tree. We do this because the source package that B represents, is built
on the tarball, and so won't contain those files.
Therefore there are files that are in A, but not in B.
Now we want to builds packages with a recipe that is
lp:foo
merge packaging lp....
which merges B in to C.
As A->B deletes some files, then there will be conflicts if any of those files were modified
in A->C.
However, we don't want conflicts. These deletions aren't important to us, and we want the
conflict to be automatically resolved in favour of C.
I don't think this applies across the board to any deletion/ modification conflicts when using
bzr-builder, but it will be the common case.
Thanks,
James