Merge lp:~lifeless/bzr-builddeb/trunk into lp:bzr-builddeb

Hi,

This looks good to me, thanks.

There's one thing that I think is missing though, tests and
code for when there is an existing artefact from the previous
version. It appears to me as if this code will not use that
as the left-hand parent of the created revision.

Plus two smaller things:

  119 + db.branch.repository.fetch

looks wrong to me, and I would like a trace.note() or similar
that explains how the user can get at the newly imported
revision. Yes, it's the tag named upstream-$VERSION with the
version they provided, but a note will mean that people don't
have to infer that.

Thanks,

James

On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 06:56 +0000, Robert Collins wrote:
> Robert Collins has proposed merging lp:~lifeless/bzr-builddeb/trunk into lp:bzr-builddeb.
>
> Requested reviews:
> Bzr-builddeb-hackers (bzr-builddeb-hackers)
> Related bugs:
> #486534 merge-upstream doesn't work in shared treeless repo
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/486534
> #507270 merge-upstream tarball results in ERROR: [Errno 2] No such file or directory
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/507270
>
>
> Add an import-upstream command.
>
> I've tried to refactor things as much as possible to get code reuse, but the DistributionBranch was a little large and opaque; I hope the things I've done make sense to you; please tell me anything that doesn't and I'll fix it up. This feature would fix a common failure I saw when trying to help people use merge-upstream on existing [that is, well maintained :P] bzr packaging branches at the Ubuntu portland sprint.
> differences between files attachment (review-diff.txt)
> === added file '.testr.conf'
> --- .testr.conf 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
> +++ .testr.conf 2010-05-03 06:56:22 +0000
> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> +[DEFAULT]
> +# not quite idea, because 'all tests' is too many, and 'just loom' is too few.
> +test_command=bzr selftest --subunit $IDOPTION
> +test_id_option=--load-list $IDFILE
I haven't done an in-depth review, but noticed you mentioned loom here
rather than builddeb ^

Cheers,

Jelmer

Thanks guys; james - what do you think is wrong about the fetch? re: tag docs - I will add those.

Oh, I see the fetch issue - trivial, fixed.

All comments addressed.

Hi,

Thanks for the fixes.

There's a few things I will tweak as I merge, and there's still
no note() that I can see explaining what happened.

Thanks,

James

There is a self.outf.write(), and a test that its shown.

Ah, sorry, the diff was out of date.

Thanks,

James

Ah, sorry, the diff was out of date.

Thanks,

James