-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-06-21 12:32 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > It is possible to build a specific revision if you want to, you can > specify one in the recipe, like so: > > # bzr-builder format 0.4 > ubuntu:iprint 3 > > to build revno 3 of ubuntu:iprint
Yes. In fact, manifests are recipes and can be used to reproduce a specific build exactly. > Still - it will be harder to e.g. write a query that returns all source > package releases built from the last X revisions in a branch. Yes, you do get more tables in the query. >> That seems like a different argument. Perhaps they are complex, but >> that has nothing to do with the need for traceability. >> >> It would be sub-optimal to have two different ways of determining the >> built revision. > I don't see how manifests really provide traceability - the only thing > they know is what revision from what branch was built. That is what I mean. I believe this can be vital information. > If we keep track > of that data in another manner anyway, how do manifests help with > traceability? They don't, but it would be sub-optimal to have two different ways of determining the built revision. > Most of the interesting traced data is either in the build logs, or in > the build table anyway (requester of the build, target archive, etc). The revision id won't be in any of those, IIRC. >>> Most of the code would be shared. >> To me, it looks like new code in the buildd, new code in the UI, new >> database tables. We use recipes to link everything together, so >> eliminating recipes means a lot of rewriting. > The recipe and manifest only complicate matters here - they > aren't necessary for bzr-builder to be able to build from a branch. > What benefit would having a recipe have here? - From a feature development perspective, less work. From a maintenance perspective, less code and fewer bugs. From a user perspective, a simpler model. > Hiding recipes at the UI layer for build-from-branch builds is going to > make things more complicated. I think having two different features is more complicated. But I think that we might need to have unnamed recipes in order for this to work smoothly. > Recipes make it > harder to find back the relevant revision and branch that the build was > created from. Harder in the sense of more tables in the query. Not harder in any significant sense. > Manifests don't add extra traceability. No, but having two different ways of producing source packages makes it harder to trace the origins of a package. Aaron -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk4A2Z8ACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI1/qgCeJ81DlwR/PFXTQ6O5Q0D/cnSD N4gAnRoV7xzNuCZtjt2lVBJbt3c0NS5A =XXs8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
