On Friday, May 23, 2014 15:47:33 Timo Jyrinki wrote:
> 2014-05-23 14:41 GMT+02:00 Scott Kitterman <email@example.com>:
> > If you look at this merge proposal, it was disapproved with a suggestion
> > that it was premature. Despite that, it got released and into the
> > archive anyway.
> > So what's the point of review?
> I'm not sure if you noticed the timeline, but it got released before
> the reviews. Had I read negative reviews before I hit the publish
> button in CI Train, I wouldn't have released it.
No. I hadn't noticed. This was pointed out to me on IRC also.
> I didn't wait long with this trivial typo fix since I haven't been
> expecting reviews (I noticed a change earlier this week when I was
> preparing qtpim). I've largely worked alone on the Ubuntu side with
> some awesome help from other developers working on Ubuntu Phone and
> mitya57 regarding Qt 5 and the syncing with Debian.
The other thing I didn't know is that CI train uploads bypass the New queue in
Ubuntu. That made my comment irrelevant anyway. This is a bug that REALLY
needs fixing. Since CI train packages are mostly Ubuntu specific (Qt5 is
somewhat unique in this regard), I'd suggest those need review in New much
more than the 75% of our packages we get from Debian unmodified that have
already been through New there.
As discussed at the last vUDS, this is the first cycle where there are other
Kubuntu packages using Qt5, so you should definitely expect more interest from
> Just let me know eg. on IRC if you want to start working on anything
> related to Qt 5.3.0 packaging so that I can double-check everything I
> have currently brewing is committed to some bzr branch. I first did a
> "quick but ugly" PPA build
> (https://launchpad.net/~canonical-qt5-edgers/+archive/qt5-beta2) and
> I'm now slowly working on a tests enabled, symbols updated versions in
> parallel. That will also need to be readjusted later at minimum to
> sync with Debian.
> The final Qt 5.3.0 landing should also be prepared by doing archive
> quality uploads to a CI Train silo, so that it can be fully tested and
> then published as a whole. As Ubuntu Phone is not just ramping up but
> doing daily releases, it's important not to disturb this process. The
> silos work neatly in this regard, since they also allow syncing
> packages from Debian to the PPA from where the whole set of tested
> components is then synced to archives.
The whole phone thing is why we got blocked before. Kubuntu is currently
blocked on lack of 5.3.0, so we need to move forward. As discussed at the
last vUDS, if that's a problem for phone, they need to make their own packages
of an older version and use them.
> > I'm starting to think Canonical's Qt5 stack should go in it's own
> > namespace
> > separate from the one used by Debian/Kubuntu as was discussed at the last
> > vUDS. I don't sense much interest in collaboration.
> The Qt5 was originally put to under ~kubuntu-packagers even though it
> was only used by Ubuntu so that it could be worked on in co-operation
> in the long term more easily. Co-operation has in my opinion worked
> nicely with anyone who has been willing to contribute to the packaging
> work. Obviously with Ubuntu as the almost sole user of Qt 5 so far it
> has been largely people working on Ubuntu Phone, but that's changing
Obviously I was missing some data when I made this assertion.
I've been following Qt5 packaging in Debian pretty closely. I think focusing
on helping lisandro get good 5.3.0 packages in experimental and merging from
there is what we should be doing.
If we have archive quality packages, they should get uploaded to the archive.
CI train is causing more trouble than it's worth for these packages.
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel