unstack debian sid branches

It'd be possible to do this remotely, but probably somewhat slow. We basically just need to get a list of all the interesting branches, and then to kick off restacks, either directly on the server or over hpss.

Shouldn't we using a truly shared repo there ?

Due to bug 714425 this is not very efficient to do over hpss, so perhaps we should arrange for it to run on the server machine. Or perhaps we should do it remotely, but from a nearby machine.

I have a script to unstack server-side. I'll generalise it to restack an entire series, and get it tested and landed.

Raising priority as this is an important operational concern for the UDD effort (smooth running of the package-importer)

I wonder if this needs any updates in udd? It shouldn't, but there's a comment in icommon.py:

# development releases first for stacking, no etch or earlier as they aren't on
# lp
lp_distro_releases = {"ubuntu": ["natty", "warty", "hoary", "breezy",
                                 "dapper", "edgy", "feisty", "gutsy",
                                 "hardy", "intrepid", "jaunty", "karmic",
                                 "lucid", "maverick"],
                      "debian": ["squeeze", "lenny", "sid", "experimental"],
}

I think sid should be first in the list.

Actually, if the rest of the code does what I suspect it might, we
want the list to be -just- sid.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:18:27 -0000, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> Actually, if the rest of the code does what I suspect it might, we
> want the list to be -just- sid.

Well, what do you suspect it might.

The list is used in two places. One as a list of the releases that are
on Launchpad, because we have to handle things differently for the old
releases. If we make it just "sid" then this will behave very wrongly.

The second is to iterate over all the releases that we might want to
push to Launchpad, hence the ordering. If we make it just "sid" then we
won't push any other releases back.

The "one version at a time" change will alter the latter of these, and
just mean that we have to get the ordering in which we choose to import
things correct. That doesn't use this list currently.

Thanks,

James

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:06:49 -0000, Martin Pool <email address hidden> wrote:
> I wonder if this needs any updates in udd? It shouldn't, but there's a
> comment in icommon.py:
>
>
> # development releases first for stacking, no etch or earlier as they aren't on
> # lp
> lp_distro_releases = {"ubuntu": ["natty", "warty", "hoary", "breezy",
> "dapper", "edgy", "feisty", "gutsy",
> "hardy", "intrepid", "jaunty", "karmic",
> "lucid", "maverick"],
> "debian": ["squeeze", "lenny", "sid", "experimental"],
> }

This will need changing. However, it's not critical. We don't fiddle
with stacking or anything.

We just want to push "natty" first so that new packages follow the same
stacking scheme that we maintain with existing packages.

Thanks,

James

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:13 PM, James Westby <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:06:49 -0000, Martin Pool <email address hidden> wrote:
>> I wonder if this needs any updates in udd?  It shouldn't, but there's a
>> comment in icommon.py:
>>
>>
>> # development releases first for stacking, no etch or earlier as they aren't on
>> # lp
>> lp_distro_releases = {"ubuntu": ["natty", "warty", "hoary", "breezy",
>>                                  "dapper", "edgy", "feisty", "gutsy",
>>                                  "hardy", "intrepid", "jaunty", "karmic",
>>                                  "lucid", "maverick"],
>>                       "debian": ["squeeze", "lenny", "sid", "experimental"],
>> }
>
> This will need changing. However, it's not critical. We don't fiddle
> with stacking or anything.

Ah, cool

> We just want to push "natty" first so that new packages follow the same
> stacking scheme that we maintain with existing packages.

For Debian packages, we want to push to sid first, was the main point.
So the list should have sid at the front.

-Rob

On 8 February 2011 13:58, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
>> We just want to push "natty" first so that new packages follow the same
>> stacking scheme that we maintain with existing packages.
>
> For Debian packages, we want to push to sid first, was the main point.
> So the list should have sid at the front.

I concluded the same thing, and my patch put sid to the front.

@poolie: And your patch landed right ? Should we close the udd side of this bug then ?

The script can still be run, and this is a 1/6month event, so taking out of the current todo list.