On Sunday 09 January 2011 23:23:33 Tim Penhey wrote: > Hi Julian, > > https://code.launchpad.net/~thumper/launchpad/fix-recipe-build- > oops/+merge/45319 changes the location of source package recipe builds to > be under the archive (PPA) to be like binary package builds. > > However to do this, I changed the id that is used at the end of +build from > being the id for the binary package build to be the id of the build farm > job. This means that both binary package builds and source package builds > can share the url space of ~person/+archive/foo/+build/id. > > I have general agreement from wgrant and SteveK, but it was suggested that > you get a final OK to make sure that we don't break something unknown. > > The builds are exported, but the URLs don't make up the WADL, and so can > change under the covers. We are effectively moving from one opaque > identifier to another. It was suggested that perhaps we may be breaking > some old book marked build URLs, but it was also brought up that > historical build records aren't all that interesting that someone might > bookmark one. > > Thoughts?
Howdy Tim I think moving the SPR builds is a great thing to do, but I don't think we should be changing the existing URL. There's 3 reasons for that: 1. /builders/build/NNNNN redirects to the right place, for both PPAs and Ubuntu. It would stop redirecting to the right place for PPAs. This is a super-useful URL for buildd-admins when someone gives them a build ID to look at. 2. URLs with build IDs would now refer to two different types of ID depending on whether it's Ubuntu or a PPA. Inconsistency is bad. 3. I know for sure that people keep build IDs around to refer to later. We can't change this so that ID is no longer referenced in a URL. Also, I'm not convinved about the API argument since some admittedly crazy people might have serialized the API's build object to use in a later session. Its URL would be invalidated or at worst point to the wrong build. Instead, I think we need to come up with a new URL that we can redirect to from the old one - this is Launchpad policy I think, anyway. +build is such an awesome identifier that I am really struggling to come up with a new one though. I thought of +job but that's not really capturing the essence of the object, perhaps +buildjob even though it's a little longer. If we do that we'd need to also redirect the Ubuntu build URLs to a +buildjob. That means we need this sort of thing: * /ubuntu/+source/choqok/0.9.92-0ubuntu1/+build/2021361 => /ubuntu/+source/choqok/0.9.92-0ubuntu1/+buildjob/NNNNN * /builders/build/12345 => /ubuntu/+source/choqok/0.9.92-0ubuntu1/+buildjob/NNNNN OR ~user/+archive/ppa/+buildjob/NNNNN * ~user/+archive/ppa/+build/12345 => ~user/+archive/ppa/+buildjob/NNNNN Then everything will DTRT. I hope. * It'd also be nice to then also have a /builders/buildjob/12345 to get a shortcut URL for the new IDs. I'm happy to chat more about this if you have concerns. Cheers. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
