Ubuntu Documentation / Bzr

[Matthew East]

Hi,

On 21/08/07, Steve Alexander <steve at canonical.com> wrote:
> I know that the Canonical sysadmins are maintaining an SVN server just
> for the ubuntu doc project.  They would rather not do this, as there is
> a degree of overhead in keeping it running securely.

This is a consideration that I wasn't aware of until today but I think
it's quite an important one. If we think that bzr+LP can provide at
least as good a solution as svn does, this consideration might be
enough to make switching the right thing to do. Until today I'd always
looked for an extra feature in bzr that svn didn't have that is
particularly helpful to our workflow, but in the light of this,
perhaps that's the wrong way to look at it and we should just be
trying to ensure that bzr+LP wouldn't lead to any regressions in our
workflow.

I personally don't think it would; and we've seen quite a few small
features that are beneficial. mpt pointed out on irc today as well
that another advantage is that it's easy for contributors to work on
multiple branches at one time.

The only things that I would see being genuinely burdensome are to
consider how we would use bzr in terms of managing branches (apart
from general issues, how would we deal with having separate packages
for ubuntu-docs, kubuntu-docs and xubuntu-docs in a single branch?),
which team should have permission to push to them, and to rewrite our
documentation: these are probably things that we can deal with. What
do people think?

-- 
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF