Currently on the BuildBRanchToArchiveUI page at: https://dev.launchpad.net/BuildBranchToArchiveUI#Still%20requiring%20thought
we have: ~username/+archive/mytargetppa/+builds : needs to display different types of builds, rather than just binary builds (bug 536700) That is, our initial thinking was that we should update the current PPA +builds traversal to include SPRecipeBuilds (and potentially others), and that the individual builds themselves would also be traversed in this PPA context. I was recently convinced by Cody (who has other motives ;)) at our soyuz sprint that it could be a Bad Idea. His point was (correct me where necessary Cody) that a SPRecipeBuild is only related to a PPA because the resulting source package will be uploaded to the PPA. That is, the resulting source package belongs in soyuz in the PPA context, but the recipe builds associated with a recipe should be traversed via the recipe. This would be a cleaner separation of responsibility (enabling further separation of the different apps in the future etc.). Note: that is not to say that we wouldn't indicate on the PPA page that there are SPRecipeBuilds currently in progress targeting the PPA (view/template layer info), just that the SPRBuild isn't traversed via the PPA and merged with the soyuz binary builds. I just checked the code teams initial cut document at: https://dev.launchpad.net/BuildBranchToArchiveUI/InitialCut and saw there that a recipe will already have it's build history (ie. recipe_url/+builds), so it would seem to make sense to present the builds themselves under this traversal and only be a small step. Even if it is decided to go ahead with bug 536700, presenting the SPRBuilds under the recipe may be worthwhile as a first-cut. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
