-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Nelson wrote: > 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.
How is that different from a binary package? Is it because the source package that the binary is built from is also in the PPA? I think that it would be useful to have a page that lists all the builds that will affect the PPA, and +builds is the obvious place for it. We can, of course, provide filters to only show binary builds, if users want that. > That > is, the resulting source package belongs in soyuz in the PPA context This seems to be a distinction based on our organizational structure, rather than on user needs. Responsibility for recipes could plausibly have been given to Soyuz, and if it had, this argument would evaporate, right? > but the recipe builds associated with a recipe should be traversed via > the recipe. Why? > This would be a cleaner separation of responsibility > (enabling further separation of the different apps in the future > etc.). I think that such a separation of responsibility would be artificial. Recipe builds are related to both code and PPAs. > 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. But where *would* we show all recipe builds affecting the PPA if not there? > 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. I don't understand. That is already the plan. What is the small step you are proposing? > 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? We will provide a list of recent builds of a recipe, but I think that an overview of all the builds targetting a PPA is also needed. Aaron -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkungCYACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI1imgCgiFv786AhwRXn0w/Hsde0V3mr CdEAnAtaKaUSp1fph4ak0BNiGkHSDhiW =RMzL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
