Tim Penhey wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:59:45 Michael Hudson wrote: >> Tim Penhey wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I've been spending more time looking at this, and I want to make sure we >>> start getting some traction on the UI to build. >>> >>> I'm not yet convinced that showing existing recipes is useful at this >>> stage. We aren't yet clear ourselves why we'd want to do this or what it >>> would mean. >> I know we talked about this a bit this morning, but now I'm not so sure. >> Even in the current model, a recipe encodes enough information that >> you probably don't want to select the packaging branch each and every >> time you want to build. > > I'm not suggesting that we show the full dialog every time someone wants to > build, just when they are creating the recipe.
OK. > Once the recipe is created we show this on the branch page (mockup pending) > and there is where we have the build button (if one is not running or > waiting). Ah, right. >>> By that I mean that we don't >>> automatically reschedule builds to happen daily, but have a "build now" >>> type button that creates a build job if and only if there isn't one >>> waiting or running already. This button should obviously not be there if >>> there is one waiting or pending. >> Are you saying that for any branch, there can only be one build of a >> recipe that has the given branch as its base_branch? I'm not sure >> that's really what we want. > > No, that is not what I'm saying. > > What I am saying is that for any given recipe connected to the branch there > is > zero or one waiting or running build job. Cool. That makes sense. >>> With this in mind, we'd be creating a recipe from one of two places: >>> - a project branch (no packaging info - or most likely no packaging >>> info) - a packaging branch (may have trunk merged in) >>> * are we even going to allow this for now? >> For now, for the sake of doing something, let's not? > > Ok. > >>> Perhaps we start off really strict, and slowly roll out options. This >>> I'm in favour with, especially with the feature branch merge work that >>> Bjorn is championing. >> Yeah. It feels like we're verging on analysis paralysis now. > > Me too. > >>> I suggest a somewhat limited initial cut for the build from branch. >>> Attached is my first mockup with Balsamiq. I don't offer a revision to >>> build, only show the current and development distro series. >> We still don't have a way to represent a multi distroseries recipe. For >> now we could just create multiple recipes. >> >> We probably want to allow the name of a SourcePackageRecipe to be NULL >> if we're going to go for these throw-away type recipes to start with. > > Do we want multi-distroseries recipes? Well, what happens if the user can select both the current and development distroseries -- which is what your mockup suggests -- then we need something like that. > I'm not suggesting throw-away recipes. OK. In that case you probably want a recipe name on the creation form. Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
