Re: New Ubuntu repository with newest git-cola

[Iulian Udrea]

On 9 October 2012 12:37, Jacob Winski <jacob...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have created a Ubuntu repository with the newest git-cola - currently it's the newest git commit and is hosted on Ubuntu's Launchpad.

Ubuntu (and Debian) have a very outdated version of git-cola in their repository. Even newest Ubuntu beta has just 1.4.3.5. My repo uses official Ubuntu naming conventions, so that if by some odd chance Ubuntu received a newer version in their official repo it will automatically supersede my release - so there is no drawback to using my repo.

Please don't duplicate work. There's no need for a PPA, we can get it
uploaded to Debian (I've got upload permissions) and then sync it to
Ubuntu.

I know that I haven't paid attention to git-cola lately but that's because
I have been extremely busy with my studies.

So please grab the source package from Debian, update it and I will
sponsor it for you, killing two birds with one stone.

Iulian

[Iulian Udrea]

On 9 October 2012 22:21, Jacob Winski <jacob...@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't worry about it - thank you for all of the hard work you have put into Debian.

There is a *very* good reason for the PPA: Ubuntu stable is a release-based distro, not a rolling distro. Next stable (12.10) release is in 2 weeks, so it's too late for including this package - we'll need to wait 6 months and 2 weeks for it to show up (in 13.04). Anyway, that is the whole point of PPAs in Ubuntu: to give easy and simple access to updated and new packages for those that want them.

So for those that don't want to wait over 6 months, please feel free to use my PPA.

Yes, that is indeed correct. Quantal is going to be released on the 18th this
month. Although, we can always get whatever we want into the stable
release through backports. So, once git-cola lands in Quantal+1 we can
immediately request a backport and thus there is no waiting time for users.
 

Like I said before, there is no reason not to use my PPA because if a newer version is uploaded in Ubuntu, it will automatically supercede it anyway.

And I could not figure out a simple way to upload the needed files to Debian (waaaaaaay too much Debian docs to sift through) and no one in #debian wanted to help. I don't have time for a PHD in Debian, so I'll leave the uploading to an expert (you). The PPA already has all the files you should need ready for downloading via the website, including:
*.debian.tar.gz
*.dsc
*.orig.tar.gz
*.deb
*.diff.gz

URL of PPA website in my previous post. Please let me know what you intend to do and thank you again for improving Debian (and Ubuntu).

It's not hard at all to update a package to a newer upstream version. It's
exactly the way you've done it in your PPA. Having said that, I still don't
believe it's a good idea to have a PPA for it.

I'm happy to hand over the maintenance of git-cola in Debian to whoever
has more time to spend on it.

Iulian

[David Aguilar]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Iulian Udrea <iul...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is indeed correct. Quantal is going to be released on the 18th
> this
> month.

I'll take that as a hint that I should have a new release by this weekend ;-)

Thanks to both of you guys for Debianizing git-cola.
--
David

[Jacob Winski]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:57:55 PM UTC+2, Iulian Udrea wrote:

It's not hard at all to update a package to a newer upstream version. It's
exactly the way you've done it in your PPA. Having said that, I still don't
believe it's a good idea to have a PPA for it.

I still have no idea how to update a package to upstream (Debian). Could you please refer me to some simple and short (~3 minute reading time) instructions on how to do this?

And I still don't understand how you can say a PPA is a bad idea. Almost every worthwhile project that's intergral to Ubuntu has a PPA. Most of those have multiple (stable, unstable, etc.) like: Firefox, Banshee, Chromium, heck even bzr itself has multiple PPAs. They are especially useful for projects in rapid development. No one is saying they should replace official channels of distribution - they just fulfill a complimentary function.

[Iulian Udrea]

On 10 October 2012 01:47, David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Iulian Udrea <iul...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is indeed correct. Quantal is going to be released on the 18th
> this
> month.

I'll take that as a hint that I should have a new release by this weekend ;-)

No need to rush. We're currently in a hard freeze state where we only accept
bug fixes.

Iulian

[Iulian Udrea]

On 10 October 2012 09:01, Jacob Winski <jacob...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:57:55 PM UTC+2, Iulian Udrea wrote:

It's not hard at all to update a package to a newer upstream version. It's
exactly the way you've done it in your PPA. Having said that, I still don't
believe it's a good idea to have a PPA for it.

I still have no idea how to update a package to upstream (Debian). Could you please refer me to some simple and short (~3 minute reading time) instructions on how to do this?

How did you update it in your PPA? It's the same thing. You grab the source,
copy the debian directory over, create a changelog entry and build.
 

And I still don't understand how you can say a PPA is a bad idea. Almost every worthwhile project that's intergral to Ubuntu has a PPA. Most of those have multiple (stable, unstable, etc.) like: Firefox, Banshee, Chromium, heck even bzr itself has multiple PPAs. They are especially useful for projects in rapid development. No one is saying they should replace official channels of distribution - they just fulfill a complimentary function.

I'm definitely not saying that having a PPA is a bad idea.Those are different
from git-cola. I'm currently in talks with the Python team in Debian, hopefully
they will take git-cola under their umbrella. In that case, if you keep your PPA,
then users will get confused. We will end up with two ways to download git-cola,
one of them is through the official repositories where packages are packaged
properly and the other way is through your PPA where you might miss some
packaging details and make git-cola buggy. We definitely don't want the latter,
do we?

That being said, I personally don't mind if you keep your PPA, but that will
cause confusion amongst users and will duplicate work.

Iulian

[Jacob Winski]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:17:11 PM UTC+2, Iulian Udrea wrote:

How did you update it in your PPA? It's the same thing. You grab the source,
copy the debian directory over, create a changelog entry and build.

Sorry, but now I'm really confused. If it's the same thing, why are you asking me to do it all over again if all of the files built are already on my PPA Lauchpad page?

Also, where are those files supposed to go? Do I dput somewhere? What then?
 

I'm definitely not saying that having a PPA is a bad idea.Those are different
from git-cola. I'm currently in talks with the Python team in Debian, hopefully
they will take git-cola under their umbrella. In that case, if you keep your PPA,
then users will get confused. We will end up with two ways to download git-cola,
one of them is through the official repositories where packages are packaged
properly and the other way is through your PPA where you might miss some
packaging details and make git-cola buggy. We definitely don't want the latter,
do we?

That being said, I personally don't mind if you keep your PPA, but that will
cause confusion amongst users and will duplicate work.

I'm definitely keeping my PPAs. That's what they are there for - it stands for Personal Package Archive: "Using a Personal Package Archive (PPA), you can distribute software and updates directly to Ubuntu users." That's the very first sentence of the official Launchpad PPA help page. They are not official, not enabled in Ubuntu and people that add them should know the risk. Plus I have a warning on every PPA "just in case".

Hopefully talks between you and the Python team work out. Cheers.

[Jacob Winski]

Good news. I have updated my PPA with the latest version of git-cola from the master branch as of Oct 10th 2012 (# b9a738bac5). Already available and working:
https://launchpad.net/~winski/+archive/git-cola

Thank you David Aguilar and Guillaume DE BURE for the awesome job with the recent commits. git-cola is definitely appreciated.

[Jacob Winski]

Updated my PPA with the newest git-cola (from 2012-10-23) for the new stable release of Ubuntu: 12.10 Quantal.

URL to git-cola repo:
https://launchpad.net/~winski/+archive/git-cola

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:37:07 PM UTC+2, Jacob Winski wrote:

I have created a Ubuntu repository with the newest git-cola - currently it's the newest git commit and is hosted on Ubuntu's Launchpad.

Ubuntu (and Debian) have a very outdated version of git-cola in their repository. Even newest Ubuntu beta has just 1.4.3.5. My repo uses official Ubuntu naming conventions, so that if by some odd chance Ubuntu received a newer version in their official repo it will automatically supersede my release - so there is no drawback to using my repo.

URL to git-cola repo:
https://launchpad.net/~winski/+archive/git-cola

How to install repo:
sudo apt-add-repository ppa:winski/git-cola

Then update package list:
sudo apt-get update

Now either install or upgrade:
sudo apt-get install git-cola
sudo apt-get upgrade

One liner install:
sudo apt-add-repository ppa:winski/git-cola && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install git-cola